106234 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

This analysis assumes that each lot is 

sampled and inspected independently. 

This may overstate the extent of higher 

fees because under the new fee structure 

the cost declines for each additional 

sublot, as shown in Table 1. To the 

extent that the lots for which fees were 

charged in the CEMS database are 

actually sublots associated with an 

inspected lot from a particular importer, 

the value in Table 4, column (2) (i.e., for 

lots more than 40,000 pounds) 

overstates the percentage of lots that 

would have been subject to a higher fee. 

It is also important to note that certain 

commodities represented larger 

proportions of the lots inspected, as 

shown in columns (4) and (5) of Table 

3. Just over 75 percent of the inspected 

lots were for avocadoes. Adding the 

next four commodities in terms of the 

magnitude of total inspections (onions, 

grapes, oranges, and kiwifruit) raises the 

cumulative percentage up to nearly 99 

percent. Four commodities (tomatoes, 

grapefruit, filbert, and potatoes) 

represented about 1.3 percent of the 

total number of lots inspected. 

This analysis shows that the fee 

impacts vary by commodity, with 

smaller fees per inspected lot expected 

for eight of the nine commodities, 

suggesting that for a large majority of 

annual inspections the cost per 

individual inspection would be the 

same or lower than with the fee system 

that would otherwise be in place in FY 

2025 and future years. 

Comments 

AMS received one comment from the 

Texas International Produce Association 

(TIPA) in full support of implementing 

this rule, noting the changes not only 

help prevent increased food prices but 

also reflects a modernization of the fresh 

produce industry. 

USDA has determined that this rule is 

consistent with and will effectuate the 

purpose of the Agricultural Marketing 

Act of 1946. Therefore, AMS is 

amending certain fees charged for 

Section 8e import inspections from a 

per-carlot basis to a per-pound basis, 

reducing the fee for each additional 

sublot by 50 percent, and establishing a 

new fee calculation for lots less than a 

carlot. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 51 

Agricultural commodities, Food 

grades and standards, Fruits, Nuts, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Vegetables. 

For reasons set forth in the preamble, 

the Agricultural Marketing Service 

amends 7 CFR part 51 as follows: 

PART 51—FRESH FRUITS, 

VEGETABLES, AND OTHER 

PRODUCTS (INSPECTION, 

CERTIFICATION, AND STANDARDS) 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 51 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621—1627. 

■ 2. Revise § 51.37 to read as follows: 

§ 51.37 Charges for fees, rates, and 

expenses. 

For each carlot of product inspected, 

a fee or rate determined in accordance 

with §§ 51.38, 51.39, and 51.40, and 

expenses determined in accordance 

with § 51.41, shall be paid by the 

applicant. 

§§ 51.39 through 51.62 [Redesignated as 

§§ 51.40 through 51.63] 

■ 3. Redesignate §§ 51.39 through 51.62 

as §§ 51.40 through 51.63 as follows: 

Old section New section 

Schedule of Fees and Charges at Destination Markets (undesignated center heading) 

§ 51.37 (unchanged) § 51.37 (unchanged). 

§ 51.38 (unchanged) § 51.38 (unchanged). 

§ 51.39 ....................... § 51.40. 

§ 51.40 ....................... § 51.41. 

§ 51.41 ....................... § 51.42. 

§ 51.42 ....................... § 51.43. 

§ 51.43 ....................... § 51.44. 

§ 51.44 ....................... § 51.45. 

Schedule of Fees and Charges at Shipping Point Areas (undesignated center 

heading) 

§ 51.45 ....................... § 51.46. 

Miscellaneous (undesignated center 

heading) 

.

§ 51.46 ....................... § 51.47. 

§ 51.47 ....................... § 51.48. 

§ 51.48 ....................... § 51.49. 

§ 51.49 ....................... § 51.50. 

§ 51.50 ....................... § 51.51. 

§ 51.51 ....................... § 51.52. 

§ 51.52 ....................... § 51.53. 

Requirements for Plants Operating Under 

Continuous Inspection on a Contract 

Basis (undesignated center heading) 

§ 51.53 ....................... § 51.54. 

§ 51.54 ....................... § 51.55. 

§ 51.55 ....................... § 51.56. 

§ 51.56 ....................... § 51.57. 

§ 51.57 ....................... § 51.58. 

§ 51.58 ....................... § 51.59. 

§ 51.59 ....................... § 51.60. 

§ 51.60 ....................... § 51.61. 

§ 51.61 ....................... § 51.62. 

§ 51.62 ....................... § 51.63. 

■ 4. Add new § 51.39 to read as follows: 

§ 51.39 Charges for fees and rates for 8e 

import inspection. 

(a) 8e import inspection fees charged 

on a per-pound basis.—(1) Establishing 

the per-pound inspection rate. To 

compute the per-pound inspection rate, 

divide the current per-lot inspection fee 

for a full carlot (whole lot) by 40,000 

(the generally accepted weight by pound 

of a full carlot). 

(2) Applying the per-pound rate. The 

per-pound inspection rate shall be 

applied to the following lot sizes as 

follows: 

(i) For a full carlot, multiply the perpound rate by the total weight of the full 

carlot plus any applicable fees for 

additional lots of the same product as 

described in paragraph (b) of this 

section. 

(ii) For lots less than a full carlot, 

multiply the per-pound rate by the total 

weight of the lot with a minimum fee 

equivalent to a 2-hour charge computed 

at the current established hourly rate, 

whichever is greater, plus any 

applicable fees for additional lots of the 

same product as described in paragraph 

(b) of this section. 

(b) 8e import inspection fees charged 

on additional lots of the same product. 

To compute the inspection fee for 

additional lots of the same product, 

multiply each additional lot by one-half 

of the current non-8e additional lot of 

the same product inspection fee. 

Erin Morris, 

Associate Administrator, Agricultural 

Marketing Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–31144 Filed 12–27–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Parts 2, 20, 26, 50, 51, 55, 73, 

140, 170, and 171 

[NRC–2011–0087] 

RIN 3150–AI96 

Non-Power Production or Utilization 

Facility License Renewal 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule and guidance; 

issuance. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is amending its 

regulations that govern the license 

renewal process for certain production 

or utilization facilities. In this final rule, 

the NRC collectively refers to these 

facilities as non-power production or 

utilization facilities (NPUFs). This final 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 106235 

rule revises the definitions of ‘‘nonpower reactor,’’ ‘‘research reactor,’’ and 

‘‘testing facility.’’ This final rule also 

eliminates license terms for licenses for 

facilities used for medical therapy or 

research and development, other than 

testing facilities; these licenses are 

issued under the authority of Sections 

104a or 104c of the Atomic Energy Act 

of 1954, as amended (AEA). This final 

rule defines the license renewal process 

for licenses issued to testing facilities 

under the authority of Section 104c of 

the AEA or commercial or industrial 

NPUFs (including testing facilities) 

under the authority of Section 103 of the 

AEA. This final rule requires all NPUF 

licensees to submit to the NRC final 

safety analysis report (FSAR) updates at 

intervals not to exceed 5 years. In 

addition, this final rule provides an 

accident dose criterion of 1 Roentgen 

equivalent man (rem) (0.01 sievert [Sv]) 

total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) 

for NPUFs other than testing facilities. 

The NRC is also issuing final 

implementation guidance for this final 

rule. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

January 29, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID 

NRC–2011–0087 when contacting the 

NRC about the availability of 

information for this action. You may 

obtain publicly available information 

related to this action by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking website: Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2011–0087. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Helen 

Chang; telephone: 301–415–3228; email: 

Helen.Chang@nrc.gov. For technical 

questions, contact the individuals listed 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this document. 

• NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly 

available documents online in the 

ADAMS Public Documents collection at 

https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ 

adams.html. To begin the search, select 

‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.’’ For 

problems with ADAMS, please contact 

the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR) 

reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, at 

301–415–4737, or by email to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. For the 

convenience of the reader, instructions 

about obtaining materials referenced in 

this document are provided in the 

‘‘Availability of Documents’’ section. 

• NRC’s PDR: The PDR, where you 

may examine and order copies of 

publicly available documents, is open 

by appointment. To make an 

appointment to visit the PDR, please 

send an email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov 

or call 1–800–397–4209 or 301–415– 

4737, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. eastern 

time, Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Beall, Office of Nuclear Material 

Safety and Safeguards, telephone: 301– 

415–3874, email: Robert.Beall@nrc.gov 

and Duane Hardesty, Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, telephone: 301– 

415–3724, email: Duane.Hardesty@

nrc.gov. Both are staff of the U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

A. Need for the Regulatory Action 

In April 2008, the Commission issued 

staff requirements memorandum (SRM) 

M080317B, ‘‘Briefing on State of NRC 

Technical Programs,’’ which directed 

the staff to ‘‘examine the license 

renewal process for non-power reactors 

and identify and implement efficiencies 

to streamline this process while 

ensuring that adequate protection of 

public health and safety are 

maintained.’’ The need for improvement 

in the reliability and efficiency of the 

license renewal process was primarily 

driven by four issues: (1) historic NRC 

priorities and emergent issues; (2) 

limited licensee resources; (3) 

inconsistent existing license 

infrastructure; and (4) regulatory 

requirements and the broad scope of the 

renewal process. 

B. Major Provisions 

The major provisions of this final rule 

include changes that: 

• Revise the definitions for Nonpower reactor, Testing facility, and 

Research reactor; 

• Eliminate license terms for medical 

therapy or research and development 

facilities, other than testing facilities, 

licensed under paragraphs (a) or (c) of 

§ 50.21 of title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR); 

• Define the license renewal process 

for all commercial or industrial NPUFs 

(including testing facilities) licensed 

under § 50.22 and testing facilities 

licensed under § 50.21(c); 

• Require all NPUF licensees to 

submit an updated FSAR and 

subsequent FSAR updates to the NRC at 

intervals not to exceed 5 years; 

• Amend the current timely renewal 

provision under § 2.109, allowing 

NPUFs subject to license renewal to 

continue operating under an existing 

license past its expiration date if the 

licensee submits a license renewal 

application at least 2 years (rather than 

30 days) before the current license 

expiration date; 

• Provide an accident dose criterion 

of 1 rem (0.01 Sv) TEDE for NPUFs 

other than testing facilities; 

• Extend the applicability of § 50.59 

to NPUF licensees regardless of their 

decommissioning status; 

• Clarify an NPUF applicant’s 

requirements for meeting the existing 

provisions of § 51.45 for submitting an 

environmental report; and 

• Eliminate the requirement for NPUF 

licensees to submit financial 

qualification information with license 

renewal applications under § 50.33(f)(2). 

Concurrent with this final rule, the 

NRC is issuing Regulatory Guide (RG) 

2.7, Revision 0, ‘‘Preparation of Updated 

Final Safety Analysis Reports for NonPower Production or Utilization 

Facilities.’’ 

C. Costs and Benefits 

The NRC prepared a regulatory 

analysis to determine the expected 

quantitative costs and benefits of this 

final rule and the final implementing 

guidance, as well as qualitative factors 

to be considered in the NRC’s 

rulemaking decision. Based on the 

analysis, the NRC concluded that this 

final rule will result in net savings to 

licensees and the NRC. The analysis 

examined the benefits and costs of the 

final rule requirements and the final 

implementing guidance compared to the 

baseline for the current license renewal 

process (i.e., the no-action alternative). 

Compared to the no-action baseline, the 

NRC estimates that total net benefits to 

NPUFs (i.e., cost savings minus costs) 

will be $5.5 million ($3.9 million using 

a 3-percent discount rate or $2.6 million 

using a 7-percent discount rate) over a 

20-year period. The average NPUF will 

receive net benefits ranging from 

approximately $78,000 to $166,000 over 

a 20-year period. The NRC will receive 

total net benefits of $12 million ($8.6 

million using a 3-percent discount rate 

or $5.9 million using a 7-percent 

discount rate) over a 20-year period. 

The regulatory analysis also 

considered, in a qualitative fashion, 

additional benefits of this final rule and 

the final implementing guidance 

associated with regulatory efficiency, 

protection of public health and safety, 

promotion of the common defense and 

security, and protection of the 

environment. 

The regulatory analysis concluded 

that this final rule and the final 

implementing guidance are justified 

because of the cost savings received by 

both licensees and the NRC while 

public health and safety are maintained. 

A detailed discussion of the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
106236 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

1On May 18, 2018, the NRC issued a construction 

permit for Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC. That 

construction permit was terminated on July 11, 

2022. 

methodology and complete results is 

presented in the ‘‘Regulatory Analysis’’ 

section of this document. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Discussion 

III. Opportunity for Public Participation 

IV. Public Comment Analysis 

V. Section-by-Section Analysis 

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Certification 

VII. Regulatory Analysis 

VIII. Backfitting 

IX. Cumulative Effects of Regulation 

X. Plain Writing 

XI. Voluntary Consensus Standards 

XII. Environmental Assessment and Final 

Finding of No Significant Environmental 

Impact 

XIII. Paperwork Reduction Act 

XIV. Congressional Review Act 

XV. Criminal Penalties 

XVI. Availability of Guidance 

XVII. Availability of Documents 

I. Background 

The NRC licenses NPUFs under the 

authority granted in Sections 103 and 

104 of the AEA. Section 103 of the AEA 

applies to commercial and industrial 

facilities, and Sections 104a and 104c of 

the AEA apply to facilities used for 

medical therapy or research and 

development activities, respectively. 

The section of the AEA that provides 

licensing authority for the NRC 

corresponds directly to the class of 

license issued to a facility (e.g., Section 

104a of the AEA authorizes the issuance 

of a ‘‘class 104a’’ license). Furthermore, 

Sections 104a and 104c of the AEA 

require that the Commission impose the 

minimum amount of regulation needed 

to promote the common defense and 

security; protect the health and safety of 

the public; and permit, under Section 

104a, the widest amount of effective 

medical therapy possible and, under 

Section 104c, the conduct of widespread 

and diverse research and development. 

The NRC regulates 34 NPUFs, of 

which 29 are research reactors or testing 

facilities currently licensed to operate. 

The NRC has issued construction 

permits for two of the five remaining 

NPUFs (SHINE Medical Technologies, 

Inc. (SHINE) and the Hermes-Kairos 

Testing facility),1 and the other three 

licensees are in the process of 

decommissioning their facilities (i.e., 

removing a facility or site safely from 

service and reducing residual 

radioactivity to a level that permits 

release of the site for unrestricted use or 

use under restricted conditions). Most 

NPUFs are located at universities or 

colleges throughout the United States. 

The NRC regulates one operating testing 

facility at the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology. 

A. License Terms 

The AEA dictates an initial license 

term of no more than 40 years for class 

103 facilities, which the NRC licenses 

under § 50.22, but the AEA does not 

specify license terms for class 104a or 

104c facilities, which are licensed under 

§ 50.21(a) or (c). The regulation that 

implements this statutory authority, 

§ 50.51(a), currently specifies that the 

NRC may grant an initial license for 

NPUFs for no longer than a 40-year 

license term. If the NRC initially issues 

a license for a shorter period, then it 

may renew the license by amendment 

for a maximum aggregate period not to 

exceed 40 years. An NPUF license is 

usually renewed for a term of 20 years. 

If the requested renewal would extend 

the license beyond 40 years from the 

date of issuance, the original license 

may not be renewed by amendment. 

Rather, the NRC must issue a renewed 

license that supersedes the initial 

license. 

Any application for license renewal 

must include an FSAR describing: (1) 

changes to the facility or facility 

operations resulting from new or 

amended regulatory requirements, and 

(2) changes and effects of changes to the 

facility or procedures and new 

experiments. The FSAR must include 

the elements specified in § 50.34. The 

NRC has guidance for preparing the 

FSAR in NUREG–1537, Part 1, 

‘‘Guidelines for Preparing and 

Reviewing Applications for the 

Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: 

Format and Content.’’ The NRC reviews 

NPUF initial and renewal license 

applications using NUREG–1537, Part 2, 

‘‘Guidelines for Preparing and 

Reviewing Applications for the 

Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: 

Standard Review Plan and Acceptance 

Criteria.’’ 

As a license term nears its end, a 

licensee must submit a license renewal 

application to continue operations. A 

‘‘timely renewal’’ provision exists in 

§ 2.109(a) to enable operations to 

continue beyond the license term during 

the NRC’s review of a license renewal 

application. If the licensee files an 

application for a renewal or for a new 

license for the authorized activity at 

least 30 days before the expiration of an 

existing license, the existing license will 

not be deemed to have expired until the 

application has been finally determined. 

B. Need for Improvement in the License 

Renewal Process 

In 2008, the NRC recognized a need 

to identify and implement efficiencies 

in the NPUF license renewal process 

while ensuring that adequate protection 

of public health and safety is 

maintained. Four issues primarily drove 

this effort to improve the reliability and 

efficiency of the process. 

1. Historic NRC Priorities and Emergent 

Issues 

Under the Atomic Energy 

Commission (AEC), the NRC’s 

predecessor agency, NPUFs were some 

of the first reactors licensed and the first 

reactors to undergo license renewal. 

Most of these reactors were initially 

licensed in the late 1950s and 1960s for 

terms that varied from 10 to 40 years. 

The AEC started renewing these licenses 

in the 1960s. License renewal was 

primarily an administrative activity 

until 1976, when the NRC decided to 

also conduct a technical review 

equivalent to the initial licensing of the 

facility. The licenses that had been 

issued with initial 20-year terms were 

due for renewal during this timeframe. 

As the NRC started developing methods 

for conducting these technical reviews, 

an accident occurred at Unit 2 of the 

Three Mile Island (TMI) nuclear power 

plant. 

The NRC’s focus on post-TMI 

activities resulted in a suspension of 

NPUF license renewal activities for 

several years. After license renewal 

activities were reinitiated, the NRC 

issued numerous renewals in a short 

period of time, primarily by relying on 

generic evaluations. These 20-year 

renewals expired starting in the late 

1990s. The original licenses issued with 

40-year terms also started expiring in 

the late 1990s, creating a new surge of 

license renewal applications. 

As a result of the NRC’s response to 

the events of September 11, 2001, the 

NRC deferred work on a number of 

NPUF license renewal applications. In 

addition, the NRC’s NPUF licensing 

activities focused on implementing 

§ 50.64, ‘‘Limitations on the use of 

highly enriched uranium (HEU) in 

domestic non-power reactors,’’ to 

convert non-power reactors to the use of 

low-enriched uranium. Therefore, 

reviews of these license renewal 

applications extended for many years. 

In all cases, the timely renewal 

provision enabled these NPUFs to 

continue operating during the NRC’s 

review period. 

2. Limited Licensee Resources 

Many NPUF licensees have limited 

staff resources available for licensing 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 106237 

support. The number of NPUF staff can 

range from one part-time employee for 

some low-power facilities to four or five 

full-time employees for higher-power 

facilities. The NPUF staff that perform 

the licensing function typically do so in 

addition to their normal organizational 

responsibilities, which often results in 

delays in the license renewal process, 

particularly in responding to the NRC’s 

requests for additional information. 

3. Inconsistent Existing License 

Infrastructure 

The NPUFs licensed under § 50.21(a) 

or (c) are primarily at college and 

university sites. Staff turnover and 

limited staffing resources at an NPUF 

often contribute to a lack of historical 

knowledge of the development of the 

licensee’s FSAR and changes to the 

FSAR. During the most recent round of 

license renewals, the NRC found that 

some of the submitted FSARs did not 

adequately reflect the current licensing 

bases for the respective licensees. 

Because the only required FSAR 

submission comes at license renewal, 

which can be at 20-year or greater 

intervals, submitted FSARs often 

contain varying levels of completeness 

and accuracy. Consequently, the NRC 

has issued requests for additional 

information to obtain missing 

information, seek clarifications and 

corrections, and document the current 

licensing basis. 

4. Regulatory Requirements and Broad 

Scope of the Renewal Process 

For power reactors, license renewal 

reviews have a defined scope, primarily 

focused on aging management, as 

described in 10 CFR part 54. For NPUFs, 

there are no explicit requirements on 

the scope of issues to be addressed 

during license renewal. Therefore, the 

scope of review for license renewal was 

initially treated the same as that for an 

original license. 

In response to Commission direction 

in SRM–SECY–91–061, ‘‘Separation of 

Non-Reactor and Non-Power Reactor 

Licensing Activities from Power Reactor 

Licensing Activities in 10 CFR part 50,’’ 

the NRC developed licensing guidance 

for the first time since many NPUF 

applicants were originally licensed. In 

that guidance (NUREG–1537, Parts 1 

and 2), the NRC provides detailed 

descriptions of the scope, content, and 

format of FSARs and the NRC’s process 

for reviewing initial license applications 

and license renewal applications. 

However, the first license renewals 

using NUREG–1537 had varying levels 

of consistency and did not propose an 

acceptable alternative to the guidance. 

This resulted in the NRC sending 

requests for additional information and 

some of the issues already described in 

Section I.B. of this document. 

C. NRC Response to These Issues 

As a result of these issues, a backlog 

of NPUF license renewal applications 

developed and persisted. The 

Commission and other stakeholders 

voiced concerns not only about the 

backlog, but also about the burdensome 

nature of the license renewal process 

itself. The Commission issued SRM– 

M080317B, ‘‘Briefing on State of NRC 

Technical Programs,’’ in April 2008, 

directing the staff to ‘‘examine the 

license renewal process for non-power 

reactors to identify and implement 

efficiencies to streamline this process 

while ensuring that adequate protection 

of public health and safety are 

maintained.’’ 

In October 2008, the staff provided 

the Commission with plans to improve 

the review process for NPUF license 

renewal applications in SECY–08–0161, 

‘‘Review of Research and Test Reactor 

License Renewal Applications.’’ In 

SECY–08–0161, the staff summarized a 

public meeting held with stakeholders 

to gather feedback on the current 

process, ways the process could be 

improved, and options for improving 

the review process. The staff provided a 

detailed description of five options for 

streamlining the NPUF license renewal 

process: 

• An ‘‘alternate safety review 

approach’’ that would limit the review 

of license renewal applications to 

changes to the facility since the 

previous license review occurred. Safe 

operation of the facility would be 

assured by the review of changes to the 

facility, compliance with the current 

regulations, the previous NRC analysis, 

and the NRC’s inspection process. 

• A ‘‘graded approach’’ that would 

base the areas of review on the relative 

risk associated with the facility applying 

for a renewed license. The graded 

approach would ensure safe operation 

by properly identifying the inherent risk 

associated with the facility and ensuring 

those risks are minimized. 

• A ‘‘generic analysis approach’’ that 

would require the NRC to review and 

approve a generic reactor design similar 

to the NRC topical report process. The 

NRC would rely on the previously 

approved generic analysis and would 

not reanalyze those items. 

• A ‘‘generic siting analysis 

approach’’ that would require the NRC 

to develop a generic communication 

that contains information related to each 

of the licensee sites. The licensees could 

then reference this generic 

communication in their license renewal 

submittals. 

• An ‘‘extended license term 

approach’’ would permit extended or 

indefinite terms for NPUF licenses. The 

staff described this approach in SECY– 

08–0161: 

In order to permit an extended term 

(including possibly an indefinite term), the 

staff would have to explain why it is 

appropriate and, more importantly, 

demonstrate that there are no aging concerns. 

Environmental conditions such as 

temperature, pressure and radiation levels in 

most [research and test reactors] are not 

significant. With surveillance, maintenance 

and repair, [research and test reactors] can 

have indefinite lives. 

For a facility to be eligible for an extended 

license term, the staff would complete a 

detailed renewal with a licensing basis 

reviewed against NUREG–1537. To maintain 

the licensing basis over time, the staff would 

propose a license condition or regulation that 

requires licensees to revise their [safety 

analysis reports] on a periodic basis such as 

every 2 years. The inspection program would 

be enhanced to place additional focus on 

surveillance, maintenance and repair, and 

changes to the facility made under 10 CFR 

50.59. The licensee would still be required to 

adhere to changes in the regulations. 

The Commission issued SRM–SECY– 

08–0161, ‘‘Review of Research and Test 

Reactor License Renewal Applications,’’ 

in March 2009. The Commission 

directed the staff to: (1) immediately 

implement short-term program 

initiatives to address the backlog of 

license renewal applications; (2) work 

with the regulated community and other 

stakeholders to develop an interim 

streamlining process to focus the review 

on the most safety-significant aspects of 

the license renewal application; and (3) 

streamline the review process to ensure 

that it becomes more efficient and 

consistent, thereby reducing 

uncertainties in the process while 

ensuring compliance with regulatory 

requirements. 

As part of its direction to develop the 

program initiatives, the Commission 

instructed the staff to implement a 

graded approach commensurate with 

the risk posed by each facility, 

incorporate elements of the alternate 

safety review approach, and use risk 

insights from security assessments to 

inform the dose threshold. In addition, 

the Commission told the staff to develop 

an interim staff guidance (ISG) 

document that employs the graded 

approach to streamline the license 

renewal application process. 

Lastly, the Commission instructed the 

staff to submit a long-term plan for an 

enhanced NPUF license renewal 

process. The Commission directed that 

the plan include development of a basis 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
106238 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

2At the time of publication of the regulatory 

basis, the rulemaking title was ‘‘Non-Power Reactor 

(NPR) License Renewal Rulemaking.’’ During the 

development of the proposed rule, the scope of the 

rulemaking expanded to include licenses for certain 

facilities that are not reactors, based upon recent 

license applicants (e.g., for medical radioisotope 

irradiation and processing facilities). In order to 

encompass all affected entities, the NRC has 

changed the title of the rulemaking to ‘‘Non-power 

Production or Utilization Facility License 

Renewal.’’ 

for redefining the scope of the process 

as well as a recommendation regarding 

the need for rulemaking and guidance 

development. 

The staff responded to the 

Commission’s direction by 

implementing short-term actions to 

address the license renewal application 

backlog and developing ISG–2009–001, 

‘‘Interim Staff Guidance on the 

Streamlined Review Process for License 

Renewal for Research Reactors,’’ 

hereafter referred to as the ISG. The ISG 

called for employing a graded approach 

to streamline the license renewal 

application process. Since October 

2009, the NRC has reviewed license 

renewal applications according to the 

streamlined review process presented in 

the ISG. The ISG identified the three 

most safety-significant sections of an 

FSAR: reactor design and operation, 

accident analysis, and technical 

specifications. The NRC also has 

reviewed licensees’ radiation protection 

and waste management programs and 

compliance with financial requirements. 

The ISG divided facilities into two 

groups: (1) those facilities with licensed 

power of less than 2 megawatts thermal 

(MW(t)), which would undergo a 

limited review focusing on the safetysignificant aspects, considering the 

decisions and precedents set by past 

NRC reviews; and (2) those facilities 

with licensed power of 2 MW(t) and 

greater, which would undergo a full 

review using NUREG–1537, Part 2. The 

process outlined in the ISG facilitated 

the NRC’s review of license renewal 

applications and enabled the NRC to 

review applications in a timelier 

manner. 

In addition, the staff issued SECY–09– 

0095, ‘‘Long-Term Plan for Enhancing 

the Research and Test Reactor License 

Renewal Process and Status of the 

Development and Use of the Interim 

Staff Guidance,’’ in June 2009, to 

provide the Commission with a longterm plan for enhancing the NPUF 

license renewal process. In the longterm plan, the staff proposed to develop 

a regulatory basis to support rulemaking 

to streamline and enhance the NPUF 

license renewal process. The 

Commission issued SRM–M090811, 

‘‘Briefing on Research and Test Reactor 

(RTR) Challenges,’’ in August 2009, 

which directed the staff to accelerate the 

rulemaking to establish a more efficient, 

effective, and focused regulatory 

framework. 

D. 2012 Regulatory Basis 

In August 2012, the staff completed 

the ‘‘Non-Power Reactor (NPR) License 

Renewal Rulemaking: Regulatory Basis 

Document,’’ hereafter referred to as the 

regulatory basis.2

The NRC, in the regulatory basis, 

analyzed the NPUF license renewal 

process’s technical, legal, and policy 

issues; effects on public health, safety, 

and security; effects on licensees; effects 

on the NRC; and stakeholder feedback. 

The NRC also considered lessons 

learned from implementation of the 

streamlined review process outlined in 

the ISG. The NRC concluded that a 

rulemaking was warranted. A public 

meeting was held on August 7, 2014, to 

discuss the regulatory basis and 

rulemaking options. The NRC held 

another public meeting on October 7, 

2015, to afford stakeholders the 

opportunity to provide feedback and 

comment on preliminary proposed rule 

concepts. Participant comments and 

questions focused on the potential 

effects of eliminating license terms, the 

scope of review under the new process, 

and how the amended regulation would 

work compared to the existing license 

renewal process. The NRC considered 

the comments when developing the 

proposed rule. 

E. 2017 Proposed Rule 

On March 30, 2017, the NRC 

published the proposed rule, ‘‘NonPower Production or Utilization Facility 

License Renewal’’ in the Federal 

Register (82 FR 15643). The NRC 

proposed to eliminate license terms for 

facilities used for medical therapy or 

research and development licensed 

under the authority of Sections 104a or 

104c of the AEA, other than for testing 

facilities. Other proposed amendments 

addressed the license renewal process 

for licenses issued to testing facilities 

under the authority of Section 104c of 

the AEA and licenses issued to nonpower commercial facilities under the 

authority of Section 103 of the AEA 

(including testing facilities). The 

proposed rule also included a provision 

to require all NPUF licensees to submit 

FSAR updates to the NRC every 5 years. 

The NRC also proposed an accident 

dose criterion of 1 rem (0.01 Sv) TEDE 

for NPUFs other than testing facilities. 

The NRC requested public feedback on 

specific questions, including the 

criteria, other than power level, to use 

when determining the applicability of 

requirements for low-risk commercial 

production or utilization facilities and 

low-risk testing facilities. The proposed 

rule provided a public comment period 

of 75 days. The NRC received 16 

comment submissions on the proposed 

rule and draft implementation guidance, 

as discussed further in Section IV of this 

document. The NRC considered those 

comments in developing this final rule. 

II. Discussion 

This final rule: (1) revises the 

definitions for Non-power reactor, 

Research reactor, and Testing facility; 

(2) eliminates license terms for NPUFs 

licensed under § 50.21(a) or (c), other 

than testing facilities; (3) defines the 

license renewal process for NPUFs 

(including testing facilities) licensed 

under § 50.22 and testing facilities 

licensed under § 50.21(c); (4) requires 

all NPUF licensees to submit to the NRC 

an updated FSAR and subsequent FSAR 

updates at intervals not to exceed 5 

years; (5) amends the current timely 

renewal provision under § 2.109, 

allowing an NPUF subject to license 

renewal to continue operating under an 

existing license past its expiration date 

if the licensee submits a license renewal 

application at least 2 years before the 

current license expiration date; (6) 

provides an accident dose criterion of 1 

rem (0.01 Sv) TEDE for NPUFs other 

than testing facilities; (7) extends the 

applicability of § 50.59 to NPUFs 

regardless of their decommissioning 

status; (8) clarifies the requirements for 

NPUF license applicants to meet the 

existing provisions of § 51.45; and (9) 

eliminates the requirement to submit 

financial qualification information with 

license renewal applications under 

§ 50.33(f)(2). 

This final rule enhances the 

effectiveness and efficiency of the NPUF 

license renewal process, consistent with 

the AEA’s criterion for imposing 

minimum regulation on facilities of 

these types that is needed to promote 

the common defense and security and 

protect the health and safety of the 

public. Each of the nine main objectives 

of this final rule are discussed in detail 

in this section. 

1. Revises the definitions for Nonpower reactor, Research reactor, and 

Testing facility. 

This final rule addresses 

inconsistencies in definitions and 

terminology throughout 10 CFR chapter 

I to improve clarity in determining the 

applicability of the regulations 

associated with NPUFs as defined in 

§ 50.2. 

The NRC received public comments 

on the proposed definition of NonVerDate Sep<11>2014 21:04 Dec 27, 2024 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30DER1.SGM 30DER1

ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 106239 

power production or utilization facility. 

In reviewing the comments, the NRC 

identified that the proposed definition 

for Non-power production or utilization 

facility was too broad for defining 

production facilities that are NPUFs. 

Previously, the definition excluded fuel 

reprocessing plants, but did not exclude 

production facilities designed or used 

primarily for the formation of 

plutonium or uranium-233 or designed 

or used for the separation of the isotopes 

of plutonium. Ultimately, the NRC did 

not revise the definition for Non-power 

production or utilization facility 

because an appropriate definition to 

exclude all production facilities as 

defined under paragraphs (1) and (2) of 

the definition of Production facility in 

§ 50.2 was added by the rule on 

Emergency Preparedness for Small 

Modular Reactors and Other New 

Technologies (88 FR 80050; November 

16, 2023). Production facilities of the 

type defined under paragraph (1) of the 

definition of Production facility in 

§ 50.2 have been owned by the U.S. 

Department of Energy to produce 

plutonium or uranium-233 and have not 

been NRC licensees. If such a facility 

were to be licensed by the NRC, the 

facility’s particular use of special 

nuclear material would require the 

Commission to determine the licensing 

path for the facility. Production 

facilities, as defined under paragraph (2) 

of the definition of Production facility in 

§ 50.2, are not NPUFs because these 

facilities have a higher potential of 

radiological risk to the environment and 

the public than NPUFs (e.g., an 

inventory of high-level liquid 

radioactive wastes). This higher risk is 

evidenced by the applicability to these 

facilities of NRC regulations in 

appendix B to 10 CFR part 50, ‘‘Quality 

Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power 

Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants’’ 

and appendix F to 10 CFR part 50, 

‘‘Policy Relating to the Siting of Fuel 

Reprocessing Plants and Related Waste 

Management Facilities.’’ The definition 

of Non-power production or utilization 

facility in § 50.2 excludes production 

facilities designed or used primarily for 

the formation of plutonium or uranium233 or the separation of the isotopes of 

plutonium. 

The NRC also received a comment 

from the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology on the definition of 

Testing facility in § 50.2 and Research 

reactor in § 171.11(b)(2). The 

commenter recommended that the NRC 

revise the definitions of Testing facility 

and Research reactor to ‘‘remove the 

arbitrary 10 MW(t) threshold, and apply 

instead a risk-based approach to its 

regulation of a testing facility.’’ Further, 

the commenter stated that the risk ‘‘is 

best quantified by accident analyses 

performed under a licensing safety 

analysis’’ and linked the recommended 

definition to the NRC’s accident dose 

criterion of 1 rem (0.01 Sv) in the 

proposed rule. 

The technical basis associated with 

the 10 MW(t) threshold under the 

current definition for Testing facility, 

while generally based on safety 

significance, is not explicitly 

documented. Similarly, the technical 

basis for the 1 MW(t) threshold (coupled 

with specific design features) under the 

current definition for Testing facility is 

not explicitly documented. These 

prescriptive power thresholds do not 

account for the safety features that are 

engineered into the facility design and 

those barriers that must be breached 

during an accident before a release of 

radioactive material to the environment 

can occur. Therefore, these thresholds 

do not accurately represent the risk 

associated with a particular facility. For 

these reasons, the use of a postulated 

accident dose is a more risk-informed, 

performance-based approach, compared 

to using the power level of the reactor 

for distinguishing between types of 

NPUFs, such as research reactors and 

testing facilities. As a result of this 

public comment, the NRC revised the 

definitions of Testing facility and 

Research reactor to reflect this riskinformed approach by incorporating an 

accident dose criterion of 1 rem (0.01 

Sv) TEDE, the basis for which is 

discussed in section II.6 of this 

document. 

Additionally, the NRC is making 

conforming changes to the definitions of 

Testing facility, Research reactor, and 

Non-power reactor wherever these 

definitions appear throughout 10 CFR 

chapter I. The regulations currently refer 

to many types of facilities that are 

categorized as NPUFs, such as nonpower reactors, research reactors, 

training reactors, testing reactors, testing 

facilities, and critical assemblies. The 

NRC reviewed each instance of these 

various terms in 10 CFR chapter I. 

Where appropriate in this final rule, the 

NRC added, corrected, or standardized 

the terminology and definitions. 

While this final rule revises the 

definition of Research reactor in 

§§ 170.3 and 171.5 to conform to other 

definitions in 10 CFR chapter I, the NRC 

did not change the definition of 

Research reactor in the specific 

exemption for Federally owned and 

State-owned research reactors in 

§ 170.11(a)(9) or § 171.11(b)(2). The 

current definition in § 171.11(b)(2) is 

based on the language of the Omnibus 

Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, as 

amended (Pub. L. 101–508) (OBRA–90), 

a statutory requirement imposed by 

Congress. Further, a substantively 

similar definition of Research reactor 

was included in the provisions of the 

Nuclear Energy Innovation and 

Modernization Act (Pub. L. 115–439) 

(NEIMA) that relate to the NRC’s fee 

recovery structure. Changing the 

definition of Research reactor in 

§ 171.11(b)(2) would therefore be 

inconsistent with OBRA–90 and 

NEIMA. The definition of Research 

reactor in § 170.11(a)(9) is not based on 

OBRA–90, but the basis for that 

exemption from fees parallels the basis 

for the exemption from annual fees in 

§ 171.11(b)(2). Changing the definition 

of Research reactor in § 170.11(a)(9) 

would be a substantive change beyond 

the scope of this final rule. 

Where appropriate, this final rule 

standardizes the terminology in other 

parts of the regulations to modify the 

intended scope of regulations citing 

Research and test reactors to be either 

Non-power reactors or Non-power 

production or utilization facilities. For 

example, this final rule changes 

Research and test reactors to Non-power 

production or utilization facilities in 

appendix E to 10 CFR part 50, 

‘‘Emergency Planning and Preparedness 

for Production and Utilization 

Facilities,’’ while in § 55.40, this final 

rule changes Test and research reactors 

to Non-power reactors. Also, where 

appropriate, the final rule changes the 

uses in other parts of the regulations for 

Testing facility, Research reactor, and 

Non-power reactor to reference only one 

definition in the part where that 

definition is used most, unless the 

specific meaning is needed and different 

for a given part. In addition, the final 

rule adds the definition of Non-power 

reactor, as it is defined in § 50.2, to the 

definitions section in 10 CFR part 73 

because the term is used many times 

throughout that part. These changes 

increase clarity by defining all NPUFrelated terms consistently where they 

are most used in the regulations. 

This final rule also revises the 

definition of Non-power reactor to 

distinguish between non-power reactors 

used for research and development 

activities and non-power reactors used 

for commercial or industrial purposes. 

Before this final rule, all non-power 

reactors were defined in § 50.2 as ‘‘a 

research or test reactor licensed under 

§§ 50.21(c) or 50.22 of this part for 

research and development.’’ This final 

rule defines non-power reactors more 

precisely as one of three mutually 

exclusive categories of facilities: (1) 

testing facilities, (2) research reactors 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
106240 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

3The three Aerojet-General Nucleonics reactors 

(University of New Mexico (Docket No. 50–252), 

Idaho State University (Docket No. 50–284), and 

Texas A&M University (Docket No. 50–59)), each 

rated at 5 watts, and the University of Florida 

Argonaut reactor (Docket No. 50–83), rated at 100 

kilowatts, are not considered tank or pool reactors 

but have similarly low risk profiles. 

4The two facilities are Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology (MIT) (Docket No. 50–20) and the 

University of California/Davis (Docket No. 50–607). 

that are NPUFs licensed under 

§ 50.21(c), or (3) commercial or 

industrial reactors that are NPUFs 

licensed under § 50.22. The second and 

third categories exclude testing 

facilities, and the facilities in those 

categories must meet the accident dose 

criterion in § 50.34(a)(1)(i). If they do 

not meet this criterion, then they will be 

considered testing facilities. 

2. Eliminates license terms for NPUFs, 

other than testing facilities, licensed 

under § 50.21(a) or (c). 

The final rule language in § 50.51(c) 

eliminates license terms for NPUFs, 

other than testing facilities, licensed 

under § 50.21(a) or (c). Before this final 

rule, § 50.51(a) stated, ‘‘Each license 

will be issued for a fixed period of time 

to be specified in the license but in no 

case to exceed 40 years from date of 

issuance.’’ This included all facility 

licenses issued under 10 CFR part 50, 

including licenses for facilities issued 

under § 50.21(a) or (c). However, the 

AEA does not establish specific license 

terms nor the need for license terms for 

class 104 facilities. 

Historically, license renewal afforded 

both the NRC and the public the 

opportunity to re-evaluate the licensing 

basis of the NPUF. The purpose of 

license renewal was to assess the 

likelihood of continued safe operation 

of the facility, such that radioactive 

materials can be used for beneficial 

civilian purposes in a safe and secure 

manner. For several reasons that are 

unique to NPUFs, this objective can be 

achieved through existing oversight 

activities and review of FSAR updates 

submitted pursuant to the new 

requirements in § 50.71(e) of the final 

rule (see Section II.4. of this document). 

This approach is consistent with the 

NRC’s goal of efficient and effective 

licensing and will implement and 

reflect lessons learned from decades of 

processing license renewal applications. 

The NRC reached this conclusion based 

on three considerations: (1) low overall 

radiological risk, (2) limited agingrelated issues, and (3) slow evolution of 

the design basis. 

First, compared to power reactors, the 

NPUFs licensed under § 50.21(a) or (c), 

other than testing facilities, operate at 

low power levels, temperatures, and 

pressures, and have a small inventory of 

fission products in the fuel. Therefore, 

these NPUFs present a lower potential 

radiological risk to the environment and 

the public. Additionally, the 

consequences of the maximum 

hypothetical accidents (MHAs) for these 

facilities fall below the standards in 10 

CFR part 20 for protecting the health 

and safety of the public. 

Of the 30 NPUFs that are currently 

licensed to operate and are eligible for 

non-expiring licenses (excluding the 

one testing facility), 26 have cores that 

are submerged in tanks or pools of water 

that provide sufficient passive decay 

heat removal to prevent overheating of 

the fuel.3 Of these 26 licensed facilities, 

24 are not required to have emergency 

core cooling systems (ECCSs) because 

conservative accident analyses have 

shown that these NPUFs do not generate 

enough decay heat, even after extended 

operation at maximum licensed power, 

to be at risk of overheating, failure of a 

fission product barrier, or posing a 

threat to public health and safety. 

Additionally, many of the licensees 

monitor for leaks by routinely 

inspecting the facility, tracking and 

trending water inventory, and 

performing surveillance on installed 

pool-level instrumentation and sensors. 

Licensees sample the water periodically 

and analyze the radioisotopes in the 

primary and, if applicable, secondary 

coolant. Many licensees sample weekly 

for gross radioactive material content. 

This data also is used to establish trends 

to quickly identify fuel or heat 

exchanger failure. Most of these 

licensees analyze, in their FSARs, pool 

and heat exchanger failures and the 

potential consequences for the safety of 

the reactor, workers, and public. In 

general, the radioisotope concentrations 

in pool or tank water at NPUFs are 

within the effluent concentration limits 

specified in appendix B to 10 CFR part 

20, and therefore are not radiologically 

significant. 

Only two of the NPUFs eligible for 

non-expiring licenses are required by 

their safety analyses to have an ECCS to 

maintain core cooling in the highly 

unlikely case that a loss-of-coolant 

accident uncovers the core.4 For these 

NPUFs, the ECCS is needed only to 

direct flow into the top of the tank or 

pool to provide cooling for a limited 

time after reactor shutdown. This period 

of time depends on the recent 

operational history of the reactor, which 

determines the decay heat present at 

reactor shutdown. After this relatively 

brief time, air cooling is adequate to 

remove decay heat without the ECCS. 

Additionally, required surveillance and 

testing of the ECCS at these facilities 

help ensure the performance of the 

system. Operation of the facility is not 

permitted if the ECCS has not been 

verified to be operable before reactor 

startup or if the system is deemed 

inoperable during reactor operation. 

Second, the NRC has found that the 

simple design and operation of these 

facilities yield a limited scope of agingrelated concerns. There have been no 

significant aging issues identified at the 

time of license renewal because the NRC 

currently imposes aging-related 

surveillance requirements on NPUFs via 

technical specifications, as needed. 

Aging of components is specifically 

addressed in the standard review plan 

and acceptance criteria used for 

evaluating license renewal applications 

(i.e., NUREG–1537, Part 2). Parts 1 and 

2 of NUREG–1537 document lessons 

learned and known aging issues from 

prior reviews. Since NUREG–1537 was 

published in 1996, NRC reviews and 

assessments have not revealed any 

additional issues or need to update the 

NUREG. Specifically, based on 

operating experience over the past 60 

years and review of license renewal 

applications over the past 40 years, and 

as documented in NUREG–1537, Parts 1 

and 2, the NRC has determined that for 

NPUFs, the two main areas related to 

aging that could need surveillance 

because of potential safety concerns are 

1) fuel cladding and 2) instrumentation 

and control features. 

Regarding fuel cladding, the NRC 

currently requires NPUFs to perform 

periodic fuel inspections. Through years 

of experience, the NRC has found that 

aging-related fuel failures either do not 

occur, or failures that do occur do not 

release significant amounts of fission 

products and are quickly detected by 

existing monitoring systems and 

surveillances. If fuel failures are 

detected, licensees are able to take the 

facility out of service and remove any 

failed assemblies from service. 

With regard to instrumentation and 

control, the NRC has found that failures 

in this area result in automatic facility 

shutdown. Failures reveal themselves to 

the licensee and do not prevent safe 

shutdown. Over the past 60 years of 

operation of these facilities, the 

potential occurrence of age-related 

degradation has been successfully 

mitigated through inspection, 

surveillance, monitoring, trending, 

recordkeeping, replacement, and 

refurbishment. In addition, licensees are 

required to report preventive and 

corrective maintenance activities in 

their annual reports, which are 

reviewed by the NRC. This allows the 

NRC to identify new aging issues if they 

occur. Therefore, the NRC has 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 106241 

concluded that existing requirements 

and facility design and operational 

features will address concerns over 

aging-related issues during a nonexpiring license term. 

Third, the design bases of these 

facilities evolve slowly over time, with 

approximately five license amendment 

requests from all NPUF licensees 

combined each year and, on average, 

only five § 50.59 evaluations per facility 

per year for changes that do not require 

prior NRC approval. 

Given these considerations, the 

elimination of license terms for medical 

therapy or research and development 

facilities, other than testing facilities, 

licensed under § 50.21(a) or (c), 

combined with the addition of 

requirements for periodic FSAR 

submittals, will provide a new 

framework for enabling licensees to 

continue to operate safely while 

reducing burden on licensees and the 

NRC. The final rule at § 50.71(e) 

requires licensees to submit updated 

FSARs and subsequent FSAR updates to 

ensure that a facility’s licensing basis is 

kept up-to-date, a major function 

previously provided by the license 

renewal process, while imposing 

significantly less burden on licensees. 

Eliminating license terms for these 

licensees will allow the NRC to focus its 

resources on oversight of these facilities, 

such as conducting routine inspection 

activities and reviewing annual reports 

and FSAR updates. Recurring FSAR 

updates by licensees and reviews by the 

NRC will increase licensees’ focus on 

maintaining their facilities’ licensing 

bases. Should the NRC identify 

potential issues with the facility’s 

continued safe operation in its reviews 

of FSAR updates, the Commission can 

undertake regulatory actions specified 

in § 2.202 to modify, suspend, or revoke 

a license. In addition, the public will 

remain informed about facility 

operations through the publicly 

available FSAR submittals and will 

continue to have opportunities to 

participate in the regulatory process 

through licensing actions and the 

§ 2.206 petition process. By eliminating 

license terms and requiring periodic 

FSAR update submittals, coupled with 

existing oversight processes, the NRC 

will reduce the burden on the affected 

licensees and the NRC, which is 

consistent with the AEA and supports 

the NRC’s goal of efficient and effective 

licensing. 

Most licenses of existing NPUFs 

licensed under § 50.21(a) or (c), other 

than testing facilities, will be modified 

by order to remove the license terms 

after the effective date of this final rule 

(see Section II.4. of this document). 

Facilities licensed under § 50.21(a) or 

(c), other than testing facilities, that 

have undergone relicensing using the 

guidance in NUREG–1537, Part 2 will be 

eligible to receive a non-expiring license 

without again renewing the current 

license. The current NPUF licensees 

that have not undergone the license 

renewal process using the guidance in 

NUREG–1537, Part 2, will each need to 

submit an application for license 

renewal if they wish to continue facility 

operation beyond the current license 

term. The NRC will review the 

application using NUREG–1537, Part 2, 

and the ISG. If the NRC concludes that 

a licensee’s application meets the 

standard for issuing a renewed license, 

then the NRC would issue a nonexpiring renewed license. If, in the 

future, the NRC issues an operating 

license to a new facility, other than a 

testing facility, under § 50.21(a) or (c), 

the license would be non-expiring and 

would be subject to periodic FSAR 

submittal requirements applicable to all 

NPUF licensees. 

This final rule makes conforming 

changes to requirements for facilities 

that are decommissioning by revising 

§ 50.82(b) and (c). These provisions 

currently use the expiration of the 

operating license as a reference point to 

address license termination applications 

and collection periods for shortfalls in 

decommissioning funding for NPUFs. 

This final rule clarifies that NPUFs 

(including testing facilities) licensed 

under § 50.22 and testing facilities 

licensed under § 50.21(c) are the only 

NPUFs with license expiration dates. 

The reference point for NPUFs licensed 

under § 50.21(a) or (c), other than testing 

facilities, is the NPUF’s permanent 

cessation of operations. 

3. Defines the license renewal process 

for NPUFs (including testing facilities) 

licensed under § 50.22 and testing 

facilities licensed under § 50.21(c). 

For NPUFs (including testing 

facilities) licensed under § 50.22 and 

testing facilities licensed under 

§ 50.21(c), this final rule defines the 

license renewal process in § 50.135. 

This one section consolidates existing 

regulatory requirements (e.g., 

requirements regarding written 

communications, application filing, 

application contents, and the issuance 

of renewed licenses) for current and 

future licensees. This final rule does not 

impose new regulations on these 

facilities. The NRC also is making a 

conforming change to § 50.8 to reflect 

the approved information collection 

requirement of § 50.135. 

Section 103 of the AEA establishes a 

license term of no more than 40 years 

for commercial or industrial facilities 

licensed under § 50.22. Although the 

AEA does not establish a fixed license 

term for testing facilities, licensees for 

these facilities are currently subject to 

additional license renewal requirements 

(e.g., siting subject to 10 CFR part 100, 

Advisory Committee on Reactor 

Safeguards review, and environmental 

impact statements) because of the 

potential for higher radiological risks 

associated with their facilities’ design, 

operation, or use as compared to other 

class 104a or 104c licensees. Therefore, 

all commercial or industrial NPUFs 

(including testing facilities) licensed 

under § 50.22 and testing facilities 

licensed under § 50.21(c) will continue 

to have fixed license terms and undergo 

license renewal. As described in 

§ 50.135(c)(2), these NPUFs will be able 

to submit a license renewal application 

to the Commission no more than 10 

years in advance of the expiration of the 

operating license currently in effect. The 

requirement in § 50.135(c)(2) is not 

intended to affect the term of operating 

licenses granted to NPUFs. 

The NRC is making renewed 

operating licenses for these facilities 

effective, and thereby replacing the 

previous operating license, immediately 

upon the date of issuance. The applicant 

for the renewed license can propose a 

schedule for implementation of the 

renewed licensee. This implementation 

schedule would ensure that the licensee 

can make any necessary and conforming 

changes to the facility processes and 

procedures required by the applicable 

conditions of the renewed license. The 

NRC will review and make the 

schedule, if approved, a condition of the 

renewed license. The immediate 

effectiveness of the renewed license is a 

change from the proposed rule, which 

would have made the renewed license 

effective 30 days after issuance. This 

final rule provides a substantively 

similar result as the proposed rule and 

provides licensees additional flexibility 

in the timing of their implementation of 

the renewed license. 

If administrative or judicial appeal 

affects the renewed license, then the 

previous operating license will be 

reinstated unless its term has expired 

and the facility has failed to submit a 

license renewal application in a timely 

manner. 

During the development of this final 

rule, the NRC recognized that 

§ 50.135(e)(2) in the proposed rule could 

have unnecessarily restricted the license 

term for a renewed NPUF license to less 

than 40 years. Section 103 of the AEA 

allows for license terms of up to 40 

years. To address this issue, this final 

rule clarifies that renewed licenses are 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
106242 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

issued for a fixed period of time, not to 

exceed 40 years. 

4. Requires all NPUF licensees to 

submit to the NRC updated FSARs and 

subsequent FSAR updates at intervals 

not to exceed 5 years. 

Maintaining up-to-date FSARs 

facilitates safe management of a facility, 

including current understanding of the 

licensing bases and effective training of 

personnel, and enables the NRC to 

fulfill its statutory obligations and 

regulatory responsibilities effectively. 

Section 50.71(e) of the final rule 

requires all NPUF licensees to submit to 

the NRC updated FSARs and 

subsequent FSAR updates at intervals 

not to exceed 5 years. The updated 

FSAR will incorporate the various 

supplements and amendments that may 

have been submitted, either in response 

to NRC questions or on the licensee’s 

own initiative, following the original 

submittal to create a single and 

complete updated document that can 

then serve as the baseline for future 

changes. Given the requirement to 

submit subsequent FSAR updates, the 

NRC anticipates that licensees will 

document changes to the licensing bases 

as they occur, which will aid in 

maintaining continuity of knowledge 

and the understanding of changes and 

effects of changes on the facility both for 

the licensee and the NRC. The NRC 

anticipates that these changes will result 

in minimal additional burden on 

licensees and the NRC because only a 

small number of changes have occurred 

per facility each year. In addition, 

licensees should have already 

documented these changes under 

§ 50.59 or through a license amendment 

request under § 50.90. 

This final rule requires licensees to 

submit, in accordance with § 50.4, a 

complete updated FSAR within 5 years 

of receipt of a facility operating license 

(§ 50.71(e)(3)(iv)) and subsequent FSAR 

updates at successive intervals not to 

exceed 5 years (§ 50.71(e)(4)(ii)). The 

NRC will issue orders to existing 

facilities licensed under § 50.21(c) that 

have undergone the license renewal 

process using the guidance in NUREG– 

1537, Part 2. These licensee-specific 

orders will direct these licensees to 

submit their updated FSARs, after 

which they will be subject to the new 

requirement in § 50.71(e)(4)(ii) to submit 

subsequent FSAR updates. 

To issue the licensee-specific orders, 

the NRC will group the facilities based 

upon when they have undergone license 

renewal using NUREG–1537. The orders 

will dictate when a licensee’s initial 

updated FSAR will be due to the NRC. 

The NRC plans to stagger the dates over 

a 5-year period following the effective 

date of this final rule. The NRC will 

place existing operating and 

decommissioning NPUF licensees in 

three groups as follows: 

(1) Group 1 consists of licensees that 

completed the license renewal process 

most recently using NUREG–1537. The 

NRC will establish a due date for the 

updated FSAR that will be at least 1 

year and no later than 3 years from the 

effective date of this final rule. The NRC 

will require these licensees to submit an 

updated FSAR first because, with a 

recent license renewal, the FSARs 

should require minimal updates. 

(2) Group 2 generally consists of 

licensees for which the NRC reviewed 

the license renewal application before 

Group 1 using NUREG–1537, and 

includes the three facilities currently in 

decommissioning. The NRC will 

establish a due date for the updated 

FSAR that will be at least 2 years and 

no later than 5 years from the effective 

date of this final rule. The NRC will 

allow these licensees more time to 

submit an updated FSAR than Group 1 

licensees because more time has passed 

since license renewal, so additional 

time may be needed to update their 

FSARs. 

(3) Group 3 consists of the remaining 

NPUF licensees that have not undergone 

license renewal using NUREG–1537. 

The licenses for these facilities are all 

due to expire in less than 5 years from 

the effective date of this final rule. If 

these licensees choose to renew their 

facility operating licenses, they will be 

subject to the requirements in § 50.71(e) 

after issuance of the renewed license. 

The general approach will be to 

stagger the submittal dates within 

Groups 1 and 2 such that licensees that 

most recently completed license 

renewal will be the first to submit their 

updated FSAR. However, the licenseespecific orders will also consider 

facility-specific circumstances and NRC 

discretion. 

This final rule also corrects a 

grammatical error in footnote 1 to 

§ 50.71(e). The footnote previously 

stated, ‘‘Effects of changes includes 

appropriate revisions of descriptions in 

the FSAR such that the FSAR (as 

updated) is complete and accurate.’’ 

This final rule changes ‘‘includes’’ to 

‘‘include’’ so that the plural subject is 

followed by a plural verb. 

5. Amends the current timely renewal 

provision under § 2.109, allowing an 

NPUF subject to license renewal to 

continue operating under an existing 

license past its expiration date if the 

licensee submits a license renewal 

application at least 2 years before the 

current license expiration date. 

The requirements in § 2.101(a) allow 

the NRC to determine the acceptability 

of an application for review by the NRC. 

However, before this final rule, § 2.109 

allowed an NPUF licensee to submit its 

license renewal application as late as 30 

days before the expiration of the 

existing license. Historical precedent 

indicates that 30 days is not a sufficient 

period of time for the NRC to adequately 

assess the sufficiency of a license 

renewal application for review. As a 

result, the NRC accepted license 

renewal applications and addressed 

their deficiencies in the license renewal 

process by issuing requests for 

additional information. This approach 

increased the duration of the license 

renewal process and resulted in 

multiple facilities operating many years 

into a ‘‘timely renewal’’ period without 

renewed licenses. 

To address this issue, the NRC is 

revising the timely renewal provision 

for NPUFs (including testing facilities) 

licensed under § 50.22 and testing 

facilities licensed under § 50.21(c) to 

establish a length of time adequate for 

the NRC to review the sufficiency of a 

license renewal application. 

Specifically, this final rule amends 

§ 2.109, allowing a facility to continue 

operating under an existing license past 

its expiration date if the licensee 

submits a sufficient license renewal 

application at least 2 years before the 

current license expiration date. In such 

cases, the existing license will not be 

deemed to have expired until the 

application has been finally determined 

by the NRC. This final rule ensures that 

the NRC has adequate time prior to the 

expiration of the current license to 

review the sufficiency of license 

renewal applications while the facility 

continues to operate under the terms of 

its current license. 

The proposed rule would have 

eliminated this provision for medical 

therapy or research and development 

facilities, other than testing facilities, 

licensed under § 50.21(a) or (c), because 

these facilities would no longer have 

license expiration dates. 

The NRC reinstates the provision in 

this final rule to enable its use for the 

remaining license renewal applications 

that may be submitted after this final 

rule is published. The NRC anticipates 

that there is one research reactor 

licensee that would use this provision. 

6. Provides an accident dose criterion 

of 1 rem (0.01 Sv) TEDE for NPUFs other 

than testing facilities. 

The standards in 10 CFR part 20 for 

protection against ionizing radiation 

provide a limit on the maximum yearly 

radiation dose a member of the public 

can receive from the operation of any 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 106243 

5 In the proposed rule, the NRC misidentified the 

part 20 rulemaking date as January 1, 1994. 

NRC-licensed facility. Licensees are 

required to maintain programs and 

facility design features to ensure that 

these limits are met. In addition to the 

dose limits in 10 CFR part 20, accident 

dose criteria are also applied during 

licensing to determine the acceptability 

of the licensed facility. The accident 

dose criteria are not dose limits; they 

inform a licensee’s accident analyses 

and the development of successive 

safety measures (i.e., defense in depth) 

so that in the unlikely event of an 

accident, the NRC has reasonable 

assurance that no acute radiation-related 

harm will result to any member of the 

public. Before this final rule, the 

accident dose criterion for NPUFs, other 

than testing facilities, was the 10 CFR 

part 20 dose limit to a member of the 

public. For testing facilities, accident 

dose criteria are found in 10 CFR part 

100: 25 rem (0.25 Sv) to the whole body 

and 300 rem (3 Sv) to the thyroid. 

Before January 1, 1994, the NRC had 

generally found acceptable accident 

doses for applicants applying for an 

initial or renewed NPUF license, other 

than for testing facilities, that were less 

than 0.5 rem (0.005 Sv) to the whole 

body and 3 rem (0.03 Sv) to the thyroid 

for members of the public. On May 21, 

1991,5 the NRC amended 10 CFR part 20 

to reduce the dose limit to a member of 

the public to 0.1 rem (0.001 Sv) TEDE 

(56 FR 23360) with an implementation 

date of January 1, 1994. Since January 

1, 1994, for applicants applying for an 

initial or renewed NPUF license, other 

than for testing facilities, the NRC has 

compared the results from the accident 

analyses submitted in initial or renewed 

license applications with the standards 

in 10 CFR part 20. 

The NRC has determined that the 

public dose limit of 0.1 rem (0.001 Sv) 

TEDE in 10 CFR part 20 is unduly 

restrictive to be applied as accident dose 

criteria for NPUFs except for testing 

facilities, which are subject to 10 CFR 

part 100. The NRC bases this 

determination on the NRC Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Appeal Board’s 

decision that the standards in 10 CFR 

part 20 are unduly restrictive as 

accident dose criteria for research 

reactors (Trustees of Columbia 

University in the City of New York, 

ALAB–50, 4 AEC 849, 854–855 (May 18, 

1972)). At the time of this decision, the 

10 CFR part 20 public dose limit was 0.5 

rem (0.005 Sv) whole body. 

However, the NRC considers the 

accident dose criteria in 10 CFR part 

100 to be too high for NPUFs other than 

testing facilities, because those NPUFs 

have lower risk profiles than testing 

facilities. For these reasons, this final 

rule modifies § 50.34 to add an accident 

dose criterion of 1 rem (0.01 Sv) TEDE 

for NPUFs not subject to 10 CFR part 

100. The accident dose criterion of 1 

rem (0.01 Sv) TEDE is based on the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s 

(EPA) Protection Action Guides (PAGs). 

The EPA PAGs are dose guidelines that 

support decisions during a radiological 

incident to take protective actions such 

as staying indoors or evacuating. The 

proposed rule stated that the 1 rem (0.01 

Sv) TEDE accident dose criterion was 

based on the EPA PAGs published in 

EPA 400–R–92–001, ‘‘Manual of 

Protective Action Guides and Protective 

Actions for Nuclear Incidents.’’ In 

January 2017, the EPA published an 

update to its PAGs in EPA–400/R–17/ 

001, ‘‘PAG Manual: Protective Action 

Guides and Planning Guidance for 

Radiological Incidents.’’ This update to 

the EPA PAGs does not change the basis 

for the 1 rem (0.01 Sv) TEDE accident 

dose criterion. 

The PAG is defined as the projected 

dose to an individual from a release of 

radioactive material at which a specific 

protective action to reduce or avoid that 

dose is recommended. Three principles 

considered in the development of the 

EPA PAGs include: (1) prevent acute 

effects; (2) balance protection with other 

important factors and ensure that 

actions result in more benefit than 

harm; and (3) reduce risk of chronic 

effects. In the early phase (i.e., the 

beginning of the radiological incident, 

which may last hours to days), if the 

sum of the projected dose from external 

radiation exposure and the inhalation of 

radioactive material is 1 rem (0.01 Sv) 

to 5 rem (0.05 Sv), the EPA PAG 

recommends the protective action of 

sheltering-in-place or evacuation of the 

public to avoid inhalation of gases or 

particulates in an atmospheric plume 

and to minimize external radiation 

exposures. The EPA PAG Manual does 

not provide a protective action 

recommendation for the public when 

the projected dose to an individual from 

an incident is less than 1 rem (0.01 Sv). 

In light of this understanding of the 

early phase EPA PAG, the NRC’s 

accident dose criterion of 1 rem (0.01 

Sv) TEDE for NPUFs, other than testing 

facilities, provides reasonable assurance 

of adequate protection of the public 

from unnecessary exposure to radiation. 

The NRC revised § 50.34(a)(1)(ii)(D)(2) 

of the proposed rule to replace 

‘‘postulated accidental release of 

licensed material’’ with ‘‘postulated 

accident.’’ This final rule requires 

applicants and licensees to evaluate the 

potential dose from postulated accidents 

to include the potential exposure from 

all radiological sources, such as direct 

or scattered radiation from an 

unshielded source inside the facility, in 

addition to potential exposure from a 

release of radioactive materials. This 

requirement is consistent with the 

evaluation methodology described in 

NUREG–1537, Part 1. Under this final 

rule, these evaluations need to 

demonstrate that the dose to any 

individual located in the unrestricted 

area will not be in excess of 1 rem (0.01 

Sv) TEDE for the duration of the 

accident. Although the EPA PAGs were 

developed for radiological incidents that 

lead to the release or potential release of 

radioactive materials into the 

environment, the three principles 

considered in their development are not 

dependent on whether the dose received 

is due to exposure from a release of 

radioactive materials or from direct or 

scattered radiation. 

To provide further clarification on the 

NRC’s intent of the 1 rem (0.01 Sv) 

TEDE accident dose criterion for 

NPUFs, other than testing facilities, a 

footnote has been incorporated into the 

final rule text. The footnote clarifies that 

this 1 rem (0.01 Sv) TEDE accident dose 

criterion is not a dose limit, as 

explained in the preceding paragraphs. 

In this final rule, the NRC moves 

proposed § 50.34(a)(1)(ii)(D)(2) to 

§ 50.34(a)(1)(i) and leaves the rule 

language in § 50.34(a)(1)(ii)(D) 

unchanged. During the development of 

this final rule, the NRC recognized that 

the accident dose criterion more 

appropriately belongs in § 50.34(a)(1)(i) 

because the requirements in 

§ 50.34(a)(1)(ii) apply to power reactor 

construction permit applicants, while 

the requirements in § 50.34(a)(1)(i) 

apply to all other construction permit 

applicants, such as NPUF applicants. 

Similarly, proposed 

§ 50.34(a)(1)(ii)(D)(2) would have 

imposed a requirement on applications 

for renewed NPUF operating licenses, 

which more appropriately belongs in 

§ 50.34(b). Therefore, the NRC moved 

the requirement to new § 50.34(b)(13) in 

this final rule to clarify that an 

application for an operating license or a 

renewed operating license for an NPUF 

must include in the FSAR a final 

evaluation of the applicable radiological 

consequences consistent with 

§ 50.34(a)(1)(i). 

7. Extends the applicability of § 50.59 

to NPUFs regardless of their 

decommissioning status. 

Before this final rule, § 50.59(b) of the 

Commission’s regulations did not apply 

§ 50.59 to NPUFs whose licenses were 

amended to reflect permanent cessation 

of operations and that no longer had 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
106244 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

fuel on site (e.g., they returned all of 

their fuel to the U.S. Department of 

Energy). The former language stated that 

§ 50.59 applied to licensees ‘‘whose 

license has been amended to allow 

possession of nuclear fuel, but not 

operation of the facility.’’ Therefore, 

§ 50.59 did not apply to NPUF licensees 

that no longer possessed nuclear fuel. 

For these licensees, the NRC has 

typically added license conditions 

identical to the provisions of § 50.59 to 

allow the licensee to make changes to its 

facility or changes in its procedures that 

would not otherwise require obtaining a 

license amendment pursuant to § 50.90. 

Because most NPUFs promptly return 

their fuel to the U.S. Department of 

Energy after permanent shutdown, in 

contrast to decommissioning power 

reactors, these licensees had to request 

the addition of the license conditions, 

which imposed an administrative 

burden on the licensees and the NRC. 

This final rule eliminates this burden by 

revising § 50.59(b) to extend the 

applicability of § 50.59 to NPUFs 

regardless of their decommissioning 

status. 

8. Clarifies an applicant’s 

requirements for meeting the existing 

provisions of § 51.45. 

The NRC is required to prepare either 

an environmental impact statement or 

environmental assessment, as 

appropriate, for all licensing actions 

pursuant to 10 CFR part 51, unless a 

categorical exclusion applies as 

provided in § 51.22. For most types of 

licenses, 10 CFR part 51 specifies that 

an applicant must submit 

environmental documentation in the 

form of an environmental report, or a 

supplement to a previously submitted 

environmental report, to assist the 

NRC’s review and its compliance with 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969, as amended. However, before 

this final rule, the NRC did not have 

explicit requirements under 10 CFR part 

51 with respect to the nature of the 

environmental documentation that must 

accompany applications for 

construction permits, initial licenses, 

and renewed licenses for NPUFs. 

This final rule adds a new section to 

10 CFR part 51 to clarify NPUF 

environmental reporting requirements. 

Section 51.56 clarifies an applicant’s 

existing requirements for meeting the 

provisions of § 51.45. This change 

improves consistency throughout 10 

CFR part 51 with respect to 

environmental report submissions 

required from applicants. The NRC also 

is making a conforming change to 

§ 51.17 to reflect the approved 

information collection requirement of 

§ 51.56. 

9. Eliminates the requirement for 

NPUF licensees to submit financial 

qualification information with license 

renewal applications under § 50.33(f)(2). 

This final rule eliminates license 

renewal financial qualification 

requirements for NPUFs. Before this 

final rule, § 50.33(f) required NPUF 

license applicants to provide 

information sufficient to demonstrate 

their financial qualifications to carry out 

the activities for which the license is 

sought. Because the regulatory 

requirements for the content of an 

application for a renewed NPUF license 

were the same as those for an original 

license, NPUF licensees that requested 

license renewal were required to submit 

an update to the same financial 

information that was required in an 

application for an initial license. In 

addition, the NRC found that the 

financial qualification information did 

not meaningfully contribute to the 

NRC’s safety determination on the 

license renewal application. The 

elimination of NPUF license renewal 

financial qualification requirements 

reduces the burden associated with 

license renewal applications while still 

enabling the NRC to conduct its review 

of these applications. 

This change is consistent with the 

current license renewal process for 

power reactors. On January 30, 2004, the 

NRC published in the Federal Register 

the final rule, ‘‘Financial Information 

Requirements for Applications to Renew 

or Extend the Term of an Operating 

License for a Power Reactor’’ (69 FR 

4439). This final rule discontinued 

financial qualification reviews for 

power reactors at the license renewal 

stage except in very limited 

circumstances. The Commission stated 

that ‘‘[t]he NRC believes that its primary 

tool for evaluating and ensuring safe 

operations at nuclear power reactors is 

through its inspection and enforcement 

programs . . . .’’ Further, the 

Commission stated that ‘‘[t]he NRC has 

not found a consistent correlation 

between licensees’ poor financial health 

and poor safety performance. If a 

licensee postpones inspections and 

repairs that are subject to NRC 

oversight, the NRC has the authority to 

shut down the reactor or take other 

appropriate action if there is a safety 

issue.’’ 

At NPUF sites, the NRC’s inspection 

and enforcement programs serve as 

important tools for evaluating licensee 

performance and ensuring safe 

operations. The NRC periodically 

inspects each operating NPUF using a 

graded approach that prioritizes higherpower facilities. The NRC completes an 

annual inspection of NPUFs licensed to 

operate at power levels of 2 MW(t) or 

greater. For NPUFs operating under 2 

MW(t), the inspection program is 

designed to be completed every two 

years, although inspector availability 

and licensee availability sometimes 

dictate that an inspection cycle is 

carried out in multiple inspections over 

the 2-year cycle. Inspections can 

include reviews of organizational 

structure, operator training and 

qualification, design and design control, 

radiation and environmental protection, 

maintenance and surveillance activities, 

transportation, material control and 

accounting, operational activities, 

review and audit functions, 

experiments, fuel handling, procedural 

controls, emergency preparedness, and 

security. The NRC also performs special 

and reactive inspections. In addition, 

the NRC manages the NPUF operator 

license examination program. The NRC 

also manages the review of NPUF 

emergency and security plans and 

develops and implements policy and 

guidance concerning the NPUF 

licensing program. 

The same basis for the NRC’s 

elimination of financial qualification 

requirements for power reactor licensees 

at the time of license renewal supports 

the NRC’s elimination of NPUF 

financial qualification requirements at 

the time of license renewal. The NRC is 

not aware of any connection between an 

NPUF’s financial qualifications at 

license renewal and safe operation of 

the facility. The NRC retains broad 

authority under the AEA and 

§ 50.54(cc), § 50.54(f), and § 2.102 to 

request additional financial information 

from its licensees and applicants, as 

necessary, to protect public health and 

safety. 

III. Opportunity for Public 

Participation 

The NRC hosted two public meetings 

to engage with external stakeholders on 

the proposed rule and associated draft 

guidance document during the public 

comment period. A public meeting was 

held on May 24, 2017, to discuss the 

proposed rule. A public meeting on the 

implementation schedule of the final 

requirements was held on April 25, 

2019. Summaries of both public 

meetings are available in ADAMS, as 

provided in the ‘‘Availability of 

Documents’’ section. The feedback from 

these public meetings informed the 

development of this final rule. 

IV. Public Comment Analysis 

The NRC prepared a summary and 

analysis of public comments received 

on the 2017 proposed rule and draft 

regulatory guide, as referenced in the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 106245 

‘‘Availability of Documents’’ section. In 

response to the proposed rule and draft 

regulatory guide, the NRC received 16 

comment submissions. 

The public comment submittals are 

available from the Federal e-Rulemaking 

website at http://www.regulations.gov 

under Docket ID NRC–2011–0087. 

Responses to the public comments, 

including a summary of how the final 

rule text or guidance changed as a result 

of the public comments, can be found in 

the public comment analysis document. 

For more information about the 

associated guidance document, see the 

‘‘Availability of Guidance’’ section of 

this document. 

V. Section-by-Section Analysis 

The following paragraphs describe the 

specific changes within this final rule. 

Section 2.109 Effect of timely renewal 

application. 

In § 2.109, this final rule revises 

paragraph (a) to exclude NPUFs 

(including testing facilities) licensed 

under § 50.22 and testing facilities 

licensed under § 50.21(c) from the 30- 

day timely renewal provision by adding 

paragraph (f) to require these same 

licensees to submit a license renewal 

application at least 2 years before 

license expiration to be considered 

timely. 

Section 20.1905 Exemptions to 

labeling requirements. 

In § 20.1905, this final rule revises 

paragraph (g) to standardize terminology 

by replacing the term ‘‘reactors’’ with 

the phrase ‘‘production or utilization 

facilities.’’ 

Section 26.3 Scope. 

In § 26.3, this final rule revises 

paragraph (e) to standardize terminology 

by replacing the term ‘‘reactor’’ with the 

phrase ‘‘production or utilization 

facility.’’ 

Section 50.2 Definitions. 

In § 50.2, this final rule revises the 

definitions for Non-power reactor and 

Testing facility. 

Section 50.8 Information collection 

requirements: OMB approval. 

In § 50.8, this final rule revises 

paragraph (b) to include new § 50.135 as 

an approved information collection 

requirement in 10 CFR part 50. 

Section 50.33 Contents of 

applications; general information. 

In § 50.33, this final rule revises 

paragraph (f)(2) to remove the phrase 

‘‘for a power reactor’’ from the fourth 

sentence and to remove the fifth 

sentence, which required a non-power 

reactor applicant to submit with license 

renewal applications the same financial 

information that is required for initial 

license applications. It also redesignates 

the footnote to conform to the Office of 

the Federal Register’s requirements. 

Section 50.34 Contents of 

applications; technical information. 

In § 50.34, this final rule revises 

paragraph (a)(1)(i) to include an 

accident dose criterion for applicants for 

construction permits for NPUFs not 

subject to 10 CFR part 100 and a new 

footnote 2. It also redesignates the 

footnotes to conform to the Office of the 

Federal Register’s requirements. This 

final rule also adds paragraph (b)(13) to 

require an applicant for an operating or 

a renewed operating license for an 

NPUF to include in the FSAR a final 

evaluation of the applicable radiological 

consequences in § 50.34(a)(1)(i). 

Section 50.36 Technical specifications. 

In § 50.36, this final rule revises 

paragraph (c)(6) to standardize 

terminology by replacing the term ‘‘nonpower reactor’’ with the phrase ‘‘nonpower production or utilization.’’ 

Section 50.51 Continuation of license. 

In § 50.51, this final rule revises 

paragraph (a) to add the conditional 

phrase ‘‘except as noted under 

§ 50.51(c).’’ This final rule also adds 

new paragraph (c) to clarify that NPUFs 

licensed under § 50.21(a) or (c), other 

than testing facilities, after the effective 

date of this final rule, will have nonexpiring license terms. 

Section 50.59 Changes, tests, and 

experiments. 

In § 50.59, this final rule revises 

paragraph (b) to extend applicability to 

NPUFs that have permanently ceased 

operations and that no longer have fuel 

on site. 

Section 50.71 Maintenance of records, 

making of reports. 

In § 50.71, this final rule revises 

paragraph (e) to include NPUFs in the 

requirement and makes a tense 

correction to footnote 1. This final rule 

also revises paragraph (e)(3)(i) and 

redesignates paragraph (4) as paragraph 

(4)(i) to clarify that these paragraphs 

only apply to nuclear power reactors. 

New paragraphs (e)(3)(iv) and (e)(4)(ii) 

are added to include the requirements 

for NPUFs. This final rule also revises 

paragraph (g) to standardize terminology 

by replacing the phrase ‘‘non-power 

reactor’’ with the phrase ‘‘non-power 

production or utilization facility.’’ 

Section 50.75 Reporting and 

recordkeeping for decommissioning 

planning. 

In § 50.75, this final rule also revises 

paragraphs (d)(1), (e)(1)(iv), and (f)(4) to 

standardize terminology by replacing 

the phrase ‘‘non-power reactor’’ with 

the phrase ‘‘non-power production or 

utilization facility.’’ This final rule also 

revises paragraph (f)(5) by replacing the 

phrase ‘‘non-power reactors’’ with the 

phrase ‘‘non-power production or 

utilization facilities.’’ 

Section 50.82 Termination of license. 

In § 50.82, this final rule revises 

paragraph (b) to standardize 

terminology by replacing the term 

‘‘reactor’’ with the phrase ‘‘production 

or utilization facility’’ and revises 

paragraph (b)(1) to include testing 

facilities licensed under § 50.21(c) and 

holders of a license issued under 

§ 50.22. Paragraph (c) is revised by 

moving the phrase ‘‘that has 

permanently ceased operation before the 

expiration of its license’’ to new 

paragraph (c)(2) to clarify when the 

collection period for shortfalls in 

funding will be determined for NPUFs 

and holders of licenses issued under 

§ 50.21(b) or § 50.22, or testing facilities. 

Section 50.135 Renewal of non-power 

production or utilization facility 

licenses issued under § 50.22 and 

testing facility licenses. 

This final rule adds new § 50.135 to 

clearly define the license renewal 

process for NPUFs (including testing 

facilities) licensed under § 50.22 and 

testing facilities licensed under 

§ 50.21(c). 

Appendix C to Part 50—A Guide for the 

Financial Data and Related Information 

Required To Establish Financial 

Qualifications for Construction Permits 

and Combined Licenses 

In appendix C to part 50, this final 

rule revises paragraph III by replacing 

the reference to ‘‘medical and research 

reactors’’ with a reference to ‘‘nonpower production or utilization 

facilities of a type described in 

§ 50.21(a) or (c), other than testing 

facilities.’’ 

Appendix E to Part 50—Emergency 

Planning and Preparedness for 

Production and Utilization Facilities 

In appendix E to part 50, this final 

rule revises footnote 2 in paragraph I.3 

to include the title of Regulatory Guide 

2.6 and to replace the phrase ‘‘research 

and test reactor’’ with the phrase ‘‘nonpower production or utilization 

facility.’’ 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
106246 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Section 51.17 Information collection 

requirements; OMB approval. 

In § 51.17, this final rule revises 

paragraph (b) to add new § 51.56 as an 

approved information collection 

requirement in 10 CFR part 51. 

Section 51.45 Environmental report. 

In § 51.45, this final rule revises 

paragraph (a) to add a cross reference to 

new § 51.56. 

Section 51.56 Environmental report— 

non-power production or utilization 

facility. 

This final rule adds new § 51.56 to 

clarify existing requirements for the 

submittal and content of environmental 

reports by applicants seeking a permit to 

construct, a license to operate, or a 

renewal of a license to operate a nonpower production or utilization facility. 

Section 55.5 Communications. 

In § 55.5, this final rule revises 

paragraph (b)(1) to remove the 

conditional phrase ‘‘except for test and 

research reactor facilities.’’ It also 

revises paragraph (b)(3) to clarify the 

applicability of this paragraph to 

utilization facilities licensed under 10 

CFR part 50 that are not power reactors. 

Section 55.40 Implementation. 

In § 55.40, this final rule revises 

paragraph (d) to replace the phrase ‘‘test 

and research reactors’’ with the phrase 

‘‘non-power reactors.’’ 

Section 55.53 Conditions of licenses. 

In § 55.53, this final rule revises 

paragraphs (e) and (f)(2) to replace the 

phrase ‘‘test and research reactors’’ with 

the phrase ‘‘non-power reactors.’’ It also 

revises paragraphs (j) and (k) to clarify 

that these paragraphs apply to 

utilization facilities licensed under 10 

CFR part 50 that are not power reactors. 

Section 55.59 Requalification. 

In § 55.59, this final rule revises 

paragraph (c)(7) to clarify that this 

paragraph applies to utilization facilities 

licensed under 10 CFR part 50 that are 

not power reactors. 

Section 55.61 Modification and 

revocation of licenses. 

In § 55.61, this final rule revises 

paragraph (b)(5) to clarify that this 

paragraph applies to utilization facilities 

licensed under 10 CFR part 50 that are 

not power reactors. 

Section 73.2 Definitions. 

In § 73.2, this final rule adds the 

definition of Non-power reactor as it is 

defined in § 50.2. 

Section 73.21 Protection of safeguards 

information: performance requirements. 

In § 73.21, this final rule revises 

paragraph (a)(1)(ii) to replace the phrase 

‘‘research and test reactors’’ with the 

phrase ‘‘non-power reactors.’’ 

Section 73.23 Protection of safeguards 

information—modified handling: 

specific requirements. 

In § 73.23, this final rule replaces the 

phrase ‘‘research and test reactors’’ with 

the phrase ‘‘non-power reactors.’’ 

Section 73.60 Additional requirements 

for physical protection at non-power 

reactors. 

In § 73.60, this final rule revises all 

instances of ‘‘nonpower’’ to read ‘‘nonpower.’’ 

Section 140.3 Definitions. 

In § 140.3, this final rule removes the 

definition of Testing reactor and adds 

the definition of Testing facility as it is 

defined in § 50.2. 

Section 140.11 Amounts of financial 

protection for certain reactors. 

In § 140.11, this final rule revises 

paragraph (a)(3) to standardize 

terminology by replacing the term 

‘‘reactor’’ with the term ‘‘facility.’’ 

Section 170.3 Definitions. 

In § 170.3, this final rule revises the 

definition of Research reactor and 

revises the definition of Testing facility 

to align with the definition in § 50.2. 

Section 171.5 Definitions. 

In § 171.5, this final rule revises the 

definitions of Research reactor and 

Testing facility to align with the 

definitions in § 170.3 and § 50.2, 

respectively. 

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Certification 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the NRC certifies that 

this rule does not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. This final rule 

affects only the licensing and operation 

of NPUFs. In general, the companies, 

universities, and government agencies 

that own and operate these facilities do 

not fall within the scope of the 

definition of ‘‘small entities’’ set forth in 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size 

standards established by the NRC (10 

CFR 2.810). Additional information is 

provided in Section 4 of the regulatory 

analysis, which is available as indicated 

in the ‘‘Availability of Documents’’ 

section of this document. 

VII. Regulatory Analysis 

The NRC has prepared a final 

regulatory analysis on this regulation 

and the implementation guidance. The 

analysis examines the costs and benefits 

of the alternatives considered by the 

NRC. The regulatory analysis is 

available as indicated in the 

‘‘Availability of Documents’’ section of 

this document. 

VIII. Backfitting 

The NRC’s backfitting regulations for 

entities that are licensed under 10 CFR 

part 50 and within the scope of the 

NRC’s backfitting policy appear in 

§ 50.109, ‘‘Backfitting.’’ ‘‘Backfitting’’ is 

defined in § 50.109(a)(1), in relevant 

part, as a modification of or addition to 

the systems, structures, components, or 

design of a facility, or the procedures or 

organization required to design, 

construct, or operate a facility, which 

results from a new or amended 

provision in the Commission’s 

regulations. 

The amendments in this final rule 

include the following: 

• revising the definitions for Nonpower reactor, Testing facility, and 

Research reactor; eliminating license 

terms for medical therapy or research 

and development facilities, other than 

testing facilities, licensed under 10 CFR 

50.21(a) or (c); 

• defining the license renewal 

process for all commercial or industrial 

NPUFs (including testing facilities) 

licensed under § 50.22 and testing 

facilities licensed under § 50.21(c) by 

consolidating existing regulatory 

requirements in one section of the 

NRC’s regulations; requiring all NPUF 

licensees to submit an updated FSAR 

and subsequent FSAR updates to ensure 

that a facility’s licensing basis is kept 

up-to-date; 

• amending the current timely 

renewal provision under § 2.109, 

allowing NPUFs subject to license 

renewal to continue operating under an 

existing license past its expiration date 

if the licensee submits a license renewal 

application at least 2 years (rather than 

30 days) before the current license 

expiration date; providing an accident 

dose criterion of 1 rem (0.01 Sv) TEDE 

for NPUFs other than testing facilities, 

for use in applicants’ accident analyses; 

extending the applicability of § 50.59 to 

NPUF licensees regardless of their 

decommissioning status; 

• clarifying an NPUF applicant’s 

environmental report requirements in 

§ 51.45; and eliminating the requirement 

for NPUF licensees to submit financial 

qualification information with license 

renewal applications under § 50.33(f)(2). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 106247 

These amendments do not result in a 

modification of or addition to the 

systems, structures, components, or 

design of a facility, or the procedures or 

organization required to design, 

construct, or operate a facility. The final 

rule changes do not meet the 

§ 50.109(a)(1) definition of ‘‘backfitting’’ 

and, thus, do not constitute backfitting 

for any NPUF that may be within the 

scope of backfitting. 

The NRC will clarify whether 

commercial NPUFs (i.e., NPUFs 

licensed under Section 103 of the AEA) 

are within the scope of the NRC’s 

backfitting policy as a general matter 

through an interpretive rule process. An 

interpretive rule is an agency’s 

interpretation of a statute or its 

regulations that does not revise the 

agency’s regulations. Examples of NRC 

interpretive rules include regulatory 

guides and notices of interpretation. 

As described in the ‘‘Availability of 

Guidance’’ section of this document, the 

NRC is issuing Regulatory Guide (RG) 

2.7, ‘‘Preparation of Updated Final 

Safety Analysis Reports for Non-Power 

Production or Utilization Facilities,’’ 

which provides guidance on methods 

acceptable to the NRC for complying 

with the requirements in § 50.71(e) of 

this final rule. Issuance of this RG does 

not constitute backfitting under 

§ 50.109. As discussed in the 

‘‘Implementation’’ section of RG 2.7, 

licensees generally are not required to 

comply with the guidance in that RG. If, 

in the future, the NRC seeks to impose 

positions stated in the RG in a manner 

that would constitute backfitting or 

forward fitting, the NRC would need to 

make the showing as required in 

§ 50.109 for backfitting or Management 

Directive 8.4, ‘‘Management of 

Backfitting, Forward Fitting, Issue 

Finality, and Information Requests,’’ for 

forward fitting, that would allow the 

NRC to impose the positions. 

IX. Cumulative Effects of Regulation 

Cumulative Effects of Regulation 

(CER) consists of the challenges 

licensees may face in addressing the 

implementation of new regulatory 

positions, programs, and requirements 

(e.g., rulemaking, guidance, generic 

letters, backfits, inspections). The CER 

may manifest in several ways, including 

the total burden imposed on licensees 

by the NRC from simultaneous or 

consecutive regulatory actions that can 

adversely affect the licensee’s capability 

to implement those requirements, while 

continuing to operate or construct its 

facility in a safe and secure manner. 

The goals of the NRC’s CER effort 

were met throughout the development 

of this final rule. The NRC engaged 

external stakeholders at public meetings 

and by soliciting public comments on 

the proposed rule and associated draft 

guidance document. A public meeting 

was held on May 24, 2017, to discuss 

the proposed rule. A public meeting on 

implementation was held on April 25, 

2019. Summaries of both public 

meetings are available in ADAMS, as 

provided in the ‘‘Availability of 

Documents’’ section of this document. 

The feedback from the April 25, 2019, 

public meeting informed the NRC’s final 

rule implementation schedule. 

Based upon input from the public and 

affected licensees, the NRC has 

specified that this final rule will take 

effect 30 days from the date of 

publication of this document. For the 

purposes of implementing the 

requirements of § 50.71(e), the NRC will 

be issuing orders to certain holders of 

operating licenses, as described in 

Section II.4 of this document. 

X. Plain Writing 

The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. 

L. 111–274) requires Federal agencies to 

write documents in a clear, concise, and 

well-organized manner. The NRC has 

written this document to be consistent 

with the Plain Writing Act as well as the 

Presidential Memorandum, ‘‘Plain 

Language in Government Writing,’’ 

published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31885). 

XI. Voluntary Consensus Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act of 1995, Public 

Law 104–113, requires agencies to use 

technical standards developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies unless the use of such 

standards is inconsistent with 

applicable law or is otherwise 

impractical. The NRC is amending its 

requirements for the license renewal 

process for certain production or 

utilization facilities. This action does 

not constitute the establishment of a 

standard that contains generally 

applicable requirements. 

XII. Environmental Assessment and 

Final Finding of No Significant 

Environmental Impact 

The Commission has determined 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the 

Commission’s regulations in subpart A 

of 10 CFR part 51, that this final rule 

will not be a major Federal action 

significantly affecting the quality of the 

human environment and, therefore, an 

environmental impact statement is not 

required. The provision to eliminate 

license terms for NPUFs, other than 

testing facilities, licensed under 

§ 50.21(a) or (c) will result in no 

additional radiological or nonradiological impacts because of the 

minimal accident consequences of these 

facilities, existing surveillance and 

reporting by licensees, and NRC 

oversight. In addition, the 

implementation of this final rule will 

not affect the environmental review 

requirements for new facilities and 

facilities applying for license renewal. 

The NRC concludes that this final rule 

will not cause any additional 

radiological or non-radiological impacts 

on the human environment. 

The NRC requested the views of the 

States on the environmental assessment 

for this rule. No States filed comments 

regarding the environmental assessment 

for this rule. 

The determination of this 

environmental assessment is that there 

will be no significant offsite impact to 

the public from this action. The 

environmental assessment is available 

as indicated under the ‘‘Availability of 

Documents’’ section. 

XIII. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This final rule contains new or 

amended collections of information 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.). The 

collections of information were 

approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB), approval number 

3150–0268. 

The burden to the public for the 

information collections is estimated to 

average 51 hours per response for 

information collection requirements 

contained in 10 CFR part 50 and 0 hours 

per response for information collection 

requirements contained in 10 CFR part 

51, including the time for reviewing 

instructions, searching existing data 

sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and 

reviewing the information collections. 

The information collections are being 

conducted to create a more efficient 

licensing process that continues to 

protect public health, safety, and the 

environment. Information will be used 

by the NRC to ensure that licensing 

bases remain up-to-date and that 

adequate protection of public health and 

safety is maintained. Responses to these 

collections of information are 

mandatory under § 50.71(e) and § 51.56. 

Confidential and proprietary 

information submitted to the NRC is 

protected in accordance with NRC 

regulations at § 9.17(a) and § 2.390(b). 

You may submit comments on any 

aspect of the information collections, 

including suggestions for reducing the 

burden, by the following methods: 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
106248 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2011–0087. 

• Mail comments to: FOIA, Library, 

and Information Collections Branch, 

Office of the Chief Information Officer, 

Mail Stop: T–6 A10M, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001; InfoCollects@nrc.gov; 

or to the OMB reviewer at: OMB Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(3150–0268), Attn: Desk Officer for the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 725 

17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503. 

Public Protection Notification 

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, 

and a person is not required to respond 

to, a collection of information unless the 

document requesting or requiring the 

collection displays a currently valid 

OMB control number. 

XIV. Congressional Review Act 

This final rule is a rule as defined in 

the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 

801–808). However, the Office of 

Management and Budget has not found 

it to be a major rule as defined in the 

Congressional Review Act. 

XV. Criminal Penalties 

For the purposes of Section 223 of the 

AEA, the NRC is issuing this final rule 

that amends 10 CFR 50.34, 50.36, 50.59, 

50.71, 50.75, 50.82, 55.40, 55.53, 55.59, 

73.21, 73.23, 73.60, and 140.11 and 

creates § 50.135 under one or more of 

Sections 161b, 161i, or 161o of the AEA. 

Willful violations of these provisions 

would be subject to criminal 

enforcement. 

XVI. Availability of Guidance 

The NRC is issuing RG 2.7, Revision 

0, ‘‘Preparation of Updated Final Safety 

Analysis Reports for Non-Power 

Production or Utilization Facilities,’’ for 

the implementation of the requirements 

in § 50.71(e) of this final rule. The 

guidance is available in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML18031A007. You can 

access information and public comment 

submissions related to the guidance at 

the federal rulemaking website, 

www.regulations.gov, by searching on 

Docket ID NRC–2011–0087. 

XVII. Availability of Documents 

The documents identified in the 

following table are available to 

interested persons through one or more 

of the following methods, as indicated. 

Document ADAMS accession No./web link/Federal Register 

citation 

NUREG–1537, Part 1, ‘‘Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors, Format and Content’’.ML042430055. 

NUREG–1537, Part 2, ‘‘Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors, Standard Review Plan and Acceptance Criteria’’.ML042430048. 

Interim Staff Guidance-2009–001, ‘‘Interim Staff Guidance on the Streamlined Review 

Process for License Renewal for Research Reactors’’.

ML092240244. 

Non-Power Reactor License Renewal: Preliminary Draft Regulatory Basis; Request for 

Comment.

77 FR 38742; June 29, 2012. 

Non-Power Reactor (NPR) License Renewal Rulemaking: Regulatory Basis Document .. ML12240A677. 

Federal Register Notice: Final Regulatory Basis for Rulemaking to Streamline NonPower Reactor License Renewal; Notice of Availability of Documents.ML12250A658. 

SECY–08–0161, ‘‘Review of Research and Test Reactor License Renewal Applications’’ ML082550140. 

SRM–SECY–08–0161, ‘‘Review of Research and Test Reactor License Renewal Applications’’.ML090850159. 

SRM–M080317B, ‘‘Briefing on State of NRC Technical Programs’’ ................................... ML080940439. 

SECY–09–0095, ‘‘Long-Term Plan for Enhancing the Research and Test Reactor License Renewal Process and Status of the Development and Use of the Interim Staff 

Guidance’’.

ML092150717. 

SRM–SECY–91–061, ‘‘Separation of Non-Reactor and Non-Power Reactor Licensing 

Activities from Power Reactor Licensing Activities in 10 CFR Part 50’’.

ML010050021. 

SRM–M090811, ‘‘Briefing on Research and Test Reactor (RTR) Challenges’’ .................. ML092380046. 

Draft Regulatory Guide DG–2006, ‘‘Preparation of Updated Final Safety Analysis Reports for Non-Power Production or Utilization Facilities’’.ML17068A041. 

Proposed Rule: Draft Regulatory and Backfit Analysis ....................................................... ML17068A038. 

Proposed Rule: Draft OMB Supporting Statement .............................................................. ML17068A077. 

Proposed Rule: Draft Environmental Assessment .............................................................. ML17068A035. 

SECY–16–0048, ‘‘Proposed Rulemaking: Non-Power Production or Utilization Facility License Renewal (RIN 3150–AI96)’’.ML16019A048. 

EPA 400–R–92–001, ‘‘Manual of Protective Action Guides and Protective Actions for 

Nuclear Incidents’’.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/ 

documents/pags.pdf. 

EPA–400/R–17/001, ‘‘PAG Manual: Protective Action Guides and Planning Guidance for 

Radiological Incidents’’.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-01/ 

documents/epa_pag_manual_final_revisions_01-11- 

2017_cover_disclaimer_8.pdf. 

Summary of August 7, 2014, Public Meeting to Discuss the Rulemaking for Streamlining 

Non-power Reactor License Renewal.

ML15322A400. 

Summary of October 7, 2015, Public Meeting to Discuss the Rulemaking for Streamlining Non-Power Reactor License Renewal.ML15307A002. 

Federal Register Notice: Final Rule; Standards for Protection Against Radiation ............ 56 FR 23360; May 21, 1991. 

Federal Register Notice: Proposed Rule; Non-Power Production or Utilization Facility 

License Renewal.

82 FR 15643; March 30, 2017. 

SRM–SECY–16–0048, ‘‘Staff Requirements—Proposed Rulemaking: Non-Power Production or Utilization Facility License Renewal (RIN 3150–AI96)’’.ML17045A543. 

‘‘Supporting Statement For Information Collections Contained In 10 CFR Part 50 NonPower Production Or Utilization Facility License Renewal Final Rule,’’ dated December 2024.ML18031A006. 

‘‘Supporting Statement For Information Collections Contained In 10 CFR Part 51 NonPower Production Or Utilization Facility License Renewal Final Rule,’’ dated December 2024.ML19113A007. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 106249 

Document ADAMS accession No./web link/Federal Register 

citation 

‘‘Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Supporting Final Rule: 

Non-Power Production or Utilization Facility License Renewal,’’ dated December 2024.

ML24241A112. 

Final Rule: ‘‘Regulatory Analysis—Non-power Production or Utilization Facility License 

Renewal,’’ dated December 2024.

ML24241A114. 

‘‘NRC Response to Public Comments; Non-Power Production or Utilization Facility License Renewal,’’ dated December 2024.ML18031A005. 

Regulatory Guide 2.7, ‘‘Preparation of Updated Final Safety Analysis Reports for NonPower Production or Utilization Facilities,’’ dated December 2024.ML18031A007. 

Federal Register Notice: Final Rule; Financial Information Requirements for Applications to Renew or Extend the Term of an Operating License for a Power Reactor.69 FR 4439; January 30, 2004. 

Summary of May 24, 2017, Public Meeting to Discuss the Proposed Non-Power Production or Utilization Facility License Renewal Rule.ML17170A066. 

Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act (Pub. L. 115–439), enacted January 

14, 2019.

https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/s512/BILLS115s512enr.pdf. 

Summary of April 25, 2019, Public Meeting to Discuss the Implementation Schedule for 

the Non-Power Production or Utilization Facility License Renewal Final Rule.

ML19133A080. 

NRC Response to Public Comment Non-Power Production or Utilization Facility License 

Renewal.

ML18031A005. 

SECY–19–0062, ‘‘Final Rule: Non-Power Production or Utilization Facility License Renewal (RIN 3150–AI96, NRC–2011–0087)’’.ML18031A000 (package). 

SRM–M240904: Affirmation Session—SECY–19–0062, ‘‘Final Rule: Non-Power Production or Utilization Facility License Renewal (RIN 3150–AI96, NRC–2011–0087)’’, dated 

September 4, 2024.

ML24248A208 (package). 

Federal Register Notice: Final Rule; 10 CFR Part 50—Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities.33 FR 9704; July 4, 1968. 

Federal Register Notice: Final Rule; Elimination of Review of Financial Qualifications of 

Electric Utilities in Licensing Hearings for Nuclear Power Plants.

47 FR 13750; March 31, 1982. 

Federal Register Notice: Final Rule; Elimination of Review of Financial Qualifications of 

Electric Utilities in Operating License Reviews and Hearings for Nuclear Power Plants.

49 FR 35747; September 12, 1984. 

Federal Register Notice: Final Rule; National Environmental Policy Act—Regulations .... 43 FR 55978; November 29, 1978. 

Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Revision of Backfitting Process for Power 

Reactors.

48 FR 44217; September 28, 1983. 

Policy Statement; Revision of Backfitting Process for Power Reactors .............................. 48 FR 44173; September 28, 1983. 

Federal Register Notice: Proposed Rule; Revision of Backfitting Process for Power Reactors.49 FR 47034; November 30, 1984. 

Federal Register Notice: Final Rule; Revision of Backfitting Process for Power Reactors 50 FR 38097; September 20, 1985. 

Federal Register Notice: Final Rule; Financial Information Requirements for Applications to Renew or Extend the Term of an Operating License for a Power Reactor.69 FR 4439; January 30, 2004. 

Federal Register Notice: Proposed Rule; Revision of Backfitting Process for Power Reactors.52 FR 34223; September 10, 1987. 

Federal Register Notice: Final Rule; Revision of Backfitting Process for Power Reactors 53 FR 20603; June 6, 1988. 

Federal Register Notice: Final Rule; Limiting the Use of Highly Enriched Uranium in 

Domestically Licensed Research and Test Reactors.

51 FR 6514; February 25, 1986. 

Federal Register Notice: Final Rule; Clarification of Physical Protection Requirements 

at Fixed Sites.

58 FR 13699; March 15, 1993. 

Federal Register Notice: Final Rule; Requirements for Fingerprint-Based Criminal History Record Checks for Individuals Seeking Unescorted Access to Non-Power Reactors.77 FR 27561, 27572; May 11, 2012. 

Plain Language in Government Writing ............................................................................... 63 FR 31885; June 10, 1998. 

List of Subjects 

10 CFR Part 2 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Antitrust, Byproduct 

material, Classified information, 

Confidential business information; 

Freedom of information, Environmental 

protection, Hazardous waste, Nuclear 

energy, Nuclear materials, Nuclear 

power plants and reactors, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sex discrimination, 

Source material, Special nuclear 

material, Waste treatment and disposal. 

10 CFR Part 20 

Byproduct material, Criminal 

penalties, Hazardous waste, Licensed 

material, Nuclear energy, Nuclear 

materials, Nuclear power plants and 

reactors, Occupational safety and 

health, Packaging and containers, 

Penalties, Radiation protection, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Source material, Special 

nuclear material, Waste treatment and 

disposal. 

10 CFR Part 26 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcohol 

testing, Appeals, Chemical testing, Drug 

abuse, Drug testing, Employee 

assistance programs, Fitness for duty, 

Management actions, Nuclear power 

plants and reactors, Privacy, Protection 

of information, Radiation protection, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

10 CFR Part 50 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Antitrust, Classified 

information, Criminal penalties, 

Education, Fire prevention, Fire 

protection, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nuclear power plants and reactors, 

Penalties, Radiation protection, Reactor 

siting criteria, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Whistleblowing. 

10 CFR Part 51 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Environmental impact 

statements, Hazardous waste, Nuclear 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
106250 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

energy, Nuclear materials, Nuclear 

power plants and reactors, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

10 CFR Part 55 

Criminal penalties, Manpower 

training programs, Nuclear power plants 

and reactors, Penalties, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

10 CFR Part 73 

Criminal penalties, Exports, 

Hazardous materials transportation, 

Imports, Nuclear energy, Nuclear 

materials, Nuclear power plants and 

reactors, Penalties, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Security 

measures. 

10 CFR Part 140 

Criminal penalties, Extraordinary 

nuclear occurrence, Insurance, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear 

materials, Nuclear power plants and 

reactors, Penalties, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

10 CFR Part 170 

Byproduct material, Import and 

export licenses, Intergovernmental 

relations, Non-payment penalties, 

Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, 

Nuclear power plants and reactors, 

Source material, Special nuclear 

material. 

10 CFR Part 171 

Annual charges, Byproduct material, 

Holders of certificates, registrations, 

approvals, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nonpayment penalties, Nuclear 

materials, Nuclear power plants and 

reactors, Source material, Special 

nuclear material. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble and under the authority of the 

AEA, as amended; the Energy 

Reorganization Act of 1974, as 

amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the 

NRC is adopting the following 

amendments to 10 CFR parts 2, 20, 26, 

50, 51, 55, 73, 140, 170, and 171: 

PART 2—AGENCY RULES OF 

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 2 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 

secs. 29, 53, 62, 63, 81, 102, 103, 104, 105, 

161, 181, 182, 183, 184, 186, 189, 191, 234 

(42 U.S.C. 2039, 2073, 2092, 2093, 2111, 

2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2231, 2232, 

2233, 2234, 2236, 2239, 2241, 2282); Energy 

Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 206 

(42 U.S.C. 5841, 5846); Nuclear Waste Policy 

Act of 1982, secs. 114(f), 134, 135, 141 (42 

U.S.C. 10134(f), 10154, 10155, 10161); 

Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 552, 

553, 554, 557, 558); National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332); 44 U.S.C. 

3504 note. 

Section 2.205(j) also issued under Sec. 

31001(s), Pub. L. 104–134. 110 Stat. 1321– 

373 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note). 

■ 2. In § 2.109, revise paragraph (a) and 

add paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 2.109 Effect of timely renewal 

application. 

(a) Except for the renewal of licenses 

identified in paragraphs (b) through (f) 

of this section, if at least 30 days before 

the expiration of an existing license 

authorizing any activity of a continuing 

nature, the licensee files an application 

for a renewal or for a new license for the 

activity so authorized, the existing 

license will not be deemed to have 

expired until the application has been 

finally determined. 

* * * * * 

(f) If the licensee of a non-power 

production or utilization facility 

licensed under 10 CFR 50.22, or a 

testing facility, files a sufficient 

application for renewal at least 2 years 

before the expiration of the existing 

license, the existing license will not be 

deemed to have expired until the 

application has been finally determined. 

PART 20—STANDARDS FOR 

PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 20 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 

secs. 11, 53, 63, 65, 81, 103, 104, 161, 170H, 

182, 186, 223, 234, 274, 1701 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 

2073, 2093, 2095, 2111, 2133, 2134, 2201, 

2210h, 2232, 2236, 2273, 2282, 2021, 2297f); 

Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 

202 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842); Low-Level 

Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act 

of 1985, sec. 2 (42 U.S.C. 2021b); 44 U.S.C. 

3504 note. 

§ 20.1905 [Amended] 

■ 4. In § 20.1905, amend paragraph (g) 

by removing the word ‘‘reactors’’ and 

adding in its place the phrase 

‘‘production or utilization facilities’’. 

PART 26—FITNESS FOR DUTY 

PROGRAMS 

■ 5. The authority citation for part 26 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 

secs. 53, 103, 104, 107, 161, 223, 234, 1701 

(42 U.S.C. 2073, 2133, 2134, 2137, 2201, 

2273, 2282, 2297f); Energy Reorganization 

Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 

5842); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note. 

§ 26.3 [Amended] 

■ 6. In § 26.3, amend paragraph (e) by 

removing the word ‘‘reactor’’ and 

adding in its place the phrase 

‘‘production or utilization facility’’. 

PART 50—DOMESTIC LICENSING OF 

PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION 

FACILITIES 

■ 7. The authority citation for part 50 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 

secs. 11, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 108, 122, 

147, 149, 161, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 

187, 189, 223, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2131, 

2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2138, 2152, 2167, 

2169, 2201, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2235, 

2236, 2237, 2239, 2273, 2282); Energy 

Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 

206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); 

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, sec. 306 

(42 U.S.C. 10226); National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332); 44 U.S.C. 

3504 note; Sec. 109, Pub. L. 96–295, 94 Stat. 

783. 

■ 8. In § 50.2, revise the definitions for 

‘‘Non-power reactor’’ and ‘‘Testing 

facility’’ to read as follows: 

§ 50.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Non-power reactor means: 

(1) A testing facility; or 

(2) A research reactor, which is a nonpower production or utilization facility 

that is a nuclear reactor licensed under 

§ 50.21(c): 

(i) For which a safety assessment 

demonstrates accident radiation doses 

consistent with § 50.34(a)(1)(i); and 

(ii) That is not a testing facility; or 

(3) A commercial or industrial reactor, 

which is a non-power production or 

utilization facility that is a nuclear 

reactor licensed under § 50.22: 

(i) For which a safety assessment 

demonstrates accident radiation doses 

consistent with § 50.34(a)(1)(i); and 

(ii) That is not a testing facility. 

* * * * * 

Testing facility means a non-power 

production or utilization facility that is 

a nuclear reactor licensed under 

§ 50.21(c) or § 50.22 for which: 

(1) Analyzed accident radiation doses 

are in excess of the dose criterion for 

facilities not subject to 10 CFR part 100 

set forth in § 50.34(a)(1)(i); or 

(2) The Commission determines that 

the design, operation, or use and the 

associated risk warrant classification as 

a testing facility. 

* * * * * 

§ 50.8 [Amended] 

■ 9. In § 50.8, amend paragraph (b) by 

adding the number ‘‘50.135,’’ in 

numerical order. 

§ 50.33 [Amended] 

■ 10. Amend § 50.33 by: 

■ a. Removing the phrase ‘‘for a power 

reactor’’ from the fourth sentence and 

removing the last sentence in paragraph 

(f)(2); and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 106251 

■ b. Redesignating footnotes 4 and 5 as 

footnotes 1 and 2. 

■ 11. In § 50.34: 

■ a. Revise paragraph (a)(1)(i); 

■ b. Add paragraph (b)(13); 

■ c. Redesignate footnote 5 as footnote 

1; 

■ d. Add footnote 2; 

■ e. Redesignate footnotes 6 and 7 as 

footnotes 3 and 4; 

■ f. Remove footnotes 8 and 9; and 

■ g. Redesignate footnotes 10 and 11 as 

footnotes 5 and 6. 

The revision and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 50.34 Contents of applications; technical 

information. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) A description and safety 

assessment of the site on which the 

facility is to be located, with appropriate 

attention to features affecting facility 

design. Special attention should be 

directed to the site evaluation factors 

identified in part 100 of this chapter. 

The assessment must contain an 

analysis and evaluation of the major 

structures, systems and components of 

the facility which bear significantly on 

the acceptability of the site under the 

site evaluation factors identified in part 

100 of this chapter, assuming that the 

facility will be operated at the ultimate 

power level which is contemplated by 

the applicant. For non-power 

production or utilization facilities not 

subject to 10 CFR part 100, the 

assessment must provide an evaluation 

of the applicable radiological 

consequences that demonstrates with 

reasonable assurance that any 

individual located in the unrestricted 

area following the onset of a postulated 

accident, including consideration of 

experiments, would not receive a 

radiation dose in excess of 1 rem (0.01 

Sv)2 TEDE for the duration of the 

accident. With respect to operation at 

the projected initial power level, the 

applicant is required to submit 

information prescribed in paragraphs 

(a)(2) through (a)(8) of this section, as 

well as the information required by this 

paragraph, in support of the application 

for a construction permit, or a design 

approval. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(13) Non-power production or 

utilization facility applicants who apply 

for an initial or renewed operating 

license shall provide a final evaluation 

of the applicable radiological 

consequences in § 50.34(a)(1)(i). 

* * * * * 2The 1 rem accident dose criterion for nonpower production or utilization facilities is 

not a dose limit; it informs the analysis of 

postulated accidents and the development of 

safety measures so that in the unlikely event 

of an accident, the NRC has reasonable 

assurance that no acute radiation-related 

harm will result to any member of the public. 

§ 50.36 [Amended] 

■ 12. In § 50.36, amend paragraph (c)(6) 

by removing the phrase ‘‘non-power 

reactor’’ and adding in its place the 

phrase ‘‘non-power production or 

utilization’’. 

■ 13. In § 50.51, in the first sentence of 

paragraph (a) remove the word ‘‘Each’’ 

and add in its place the phrase ‘‘Except 

as noted in § 50.51(c), each’’ and add 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 50.51 Continuation of license. 

* * * * * 

(c) Each non-power production or 

utilization facility license issued under 

§ 50.21(a) or (c), other than a testing 

facility license, after January 29, 2025, 

will be issued with no fixed license 

term. 

■ 14. In § 50.59, revise paragraph (b) to 

read as follows: 

§ 50.59 Changes, tests, and experiments. 

* * * * * 

(b) This section applies to each holder 

of an operating license issued under this 

part or a combined license issued under 

part 52 of this chapter, including the 

holder of a license authorizing the 

operation of a nuclear power reactor 

that has submitted the certification of 

permanent cessation of operations 

required under § 50.82(a)(1) or § 50.110, 

a reactor licensee whose license has 

been amended to allow possession of 

nuclear fuel but not operation of the 

facility, or a non-power production or 

utilization facility that has permanently 

ceased operations. 

* * * * * 

■ 15. In § 50.71: 

■ a. In the first sentence of paragraph 

(e), add the phrase ‘‘, or non-power 

production or utilization facility,’’ after 

the word ‘‘reactor’’; 

■ b. In paragraph (e)(3)(i), remove the 

letter ‘‘A’’ at the beginning and add in 

its place the phrase ‘‘For nuclear power 

reactor licensees, a’’; 

■ c. Add paragraph (e)(3)(iv); 

■ d. Redesignate paragraph (e)(4) as 

paragraph (e)(4)(i); 

■ e. In newly redesignated paragraph 

(e)(4)(i), remove the word ‘‘Subsequent’’ 

and add in its place the phrase ‘‘For 

nuclear power licensees, subsequent’’; 

■ f. Add paragraph (e)(4)(ii); 

■ g. In paragraph (g), remove the phrase 

‘‘non-power reactor’’ and add in its 

place the phrase ‘‘non-power 

production or utilization facility’’; and 

■ h. In footnote 1, remove the word 

‘‘includes’’ and add in its place the 

word ‘‘include’’. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 50.71 Maintenance of records, making of 

reports. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(iv) Holders of non-power production 

or utilization facility licenses issued 

after January 29, 2025, shall file a 

revision of the original FSAR containing 

those original pages that are still 

applicable plus new replacement pages 

within 5 years of the date of issuance of 

the operating license. The revision must 

bring the FSAR up to date as of a 

maximum of 6 months prior to the date 

of filing the revision. 

* * * * * 

(4) * * * 

(ii) Non-power production or 

utilization facility licensees shall file an 

FSAR update no more than 5 years from 

the date of the submittal of the updated 

FSAR required by § 50.71(e)(3)(iv) or by 

order and shall file subsequent updates 

no more than 5 years from the date of 

the previous submittal. Each submittal 

must reflect all changes made to the 

FSAR up to a maximum of 6 months 

prior to the date of filing the submittal. 

* * * * * 

■ 16. In § 50.75: 

■ a. Revise paragraph (d)(1); 

■ b. In paragraphs (e)(1)(iv) and (f)(4), 

remove the phrase ‘‘non-power reactor’’ 

and add in its place the phrase ‘‘nonpower production or utilization 

facility’’; and 

■ c. In paragraph (f)(5), remove the 

phrase ‘‘power and non-power reactors’’ 

and add in its place the phrase ‘‘power 

reactors and non-power production or 

utilization facilities’’. 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 50.75 Reporting and recordkeeping for 

decommissioning planning. 

* * * * * 

(d)(1) Each applicant for or holder of 

an operating license for a non-power 

production or utilization facility shall 

submit a decommissioning report as 

required by § 50.33(k) of this part. 

* * * * * 

■ 17. In § 50.82, revise paragraphs (b) 

introductory text, (b)(1), and (c) to read 

as follows: 

§ 50.82 Termination of license. 

* * * * * 

(b) For non-power production or 

utilization facility licensees— 

(1) A licensee that permanently ceases 

operations must make application for 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
106252 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

license termination within 2 years 

following permanent cessation of 

operations, and for testing facilities 

licensed under § 50.21(c) or facilities 

licensed under § 50.22, in no case later 

than 1 year prior to expiration of the 

operating license. Each application for 

termination of a license must be 

accompanied or preceded by a proposed 

decommissioning plan. The contents of 

the decommissioning plan are specified 

in paragraph (b)(4) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(c) The collection period for any 

shortfall of funds will be determined, 

upon application by the licensee, on a 

case-by-case basis taking into account 

the specific financial situation of each 

holder of the following licenses: 

(1) A non-power production or 

utilization facility licensed under 

§ 50.21(a) or (c), other than a testing 

facility, that has permanently ceased 

operations. 

(2) A facility licensed under § 50.21(b) 

or § 50.22, or a testing facility, that has 

permanently ceased operation before the 

expiration of its license. 

■ 18. Add § 50.135 to read as follows: 

§ 50.135 Renewal of non-power production 

or utilization facility licenses issued under 

§ 50.22 and testing facility licenses. 

(a) Applicability. The requirements in 

this section apply to applicants for 

renewed non-power production or 

utilization facility operating licenses 

issued under § 50.22 and to applicants 

for renewed testing facility operating 

licenses issued under § 50.21(c). 

(b) Written communications. All 

applications, correspondence, reports, 

and other written communications must 

be filed in accordance with applicable 

portions of § 50.4. 

(c) Filing of application. (1) The filing 

of an application for a renewed license 

must be in accordance with subpart A 

of 10 CFR part 2 and all applicable 

sections of this part. 

(2) An application for a renewed 

license may not be submitted to the 

Commission earlier than 10 years before 

the expiration of the operating license 

currently in effect. 

(d) Contents of application. (1) Each 

application must include the 

information specified in §§ 50.33, 50.34, 

and 50.36, as applicable. 

(2) Each application must include 

conforming changes to the standard 

indemnity agreement, under 10 CFR 

part 140 to account for the expiration 

term of the proposed renewed license. 

(3) Each application must include a 

supplement to the environmental report 

that complies with the requirements of 

10 CFR 51.56. 

(e) Issuance of a renewed license. (1) 

A renewed license will be of the class 

for which the operating license 

currently in effect was issued. 

(2) A renewed license will be issued 

for a fixed period of time. The term of 

any renewed license may not exceed 40 

years. 

(3) A renewed license will become 

effective immediately upon its issuance, 

thereby superseding the operating 

license previously in effect. If a renewed 

license is subsequently set aside upon 

further administrative or judicial 

appeal, the operating license previously 

in effect will be reinstated unless its 

term has expired and the renewal 

application was not filed in a timely 

manner in accordance with 10 CFR 

2.109. 

(4) A renewed license may be 

subsequently renewed in accordance 

with all applicable requirements. 

Appendix C to Part 50 [Amended] 

■ 19. In appendix C to part 50, amend 

paragraph III by removing the phrase 

‘‘for medical and research reactors’’ and 

adding in its place the phrase ‘‘for nonpower production or utilization 

facilities of a type described in 

§ 50.21(a) or (c), other than testing 

facilities’’. 

■ 20. In appendix E to part 50, revise 

footnote 2 to read as follows: 

Appendix E to Part 50—Emergency 

Planning and Preparedness for 

Production and Utilization Facilities 

* * * * * 

2Regulatory Guide 2.6, ‘‘Emergency Planning 

for Research and Test Reactors and Other 

Non-Power Production and Utilization 

Facilities,’’ may be used as guidance for the 

acceptability of non-power production or 

utilization facility emergency response plans. 

* * * * * 

PART 51—ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION REGULATIONS FOR 

DOMESTIC LICENSING AND RELATED 

REGULATORY FUNCTIONS 

■ 21. The authority citation for part 51 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 

secs. 161, 193 (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2243); Energy 

Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202 

(42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842); National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 

4332, 4334, 4335); Nuclear Waste Policy Act 

of 1982, secs. 144(f), 121, 135, 141, 148 (42 

U.S.C. 10134(f), 10141, 10155, 10161, 10168); 

44 U.S.C. 3504 note. 

§ 51.17 [Amended] 

■ 22. In § 51.17, amend paragraph (b) by 

adding the number ‘‘51.56,’’ in 

numerical order. 

§ 51.45 [Amended] 

■ 23. In § 51.45, amend paragraph (a) by 

adding the number ‘‘51.56,’’ in 

numerical order. 

■ 24. Add § 51.56 to read as follows: 

§ 51.56 Environmental report—non-power 

production or utilization facility. 

Each applicant for a non-power 

production or utilization construction 

permit or facility license, or renewal of 

a non-power production or utilization 

facility license issued pursuant to 

§ 50.21(a) or (c) or § 50.22 of this chapter 

shall submit a separate document, 

entitled ‘‘Applicant’s Environmental 

Report’’ or ‘‘Supplement to Applicant’s 

Environmental Report,’’ as appropriate, 

with its application to: ATTN: 

Document Control Desk, Director, Office 

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. The 

environmental report or supplement 

shall contain the information specified 

in § 51.45. If the application is for a 

renewal of a license for which the 

applicant has previously submitted an 

environmental report, the supplement, 

to the extent applicable, shall include 

an analysis of any environmental 

impacts resulting from operational 

experience or a change in operations, 

and an analysis of any environmental 

impacts that may result from proposed 

decommissioning activities. 

PART 55—OPERATORS’ LICENSES 

■ 25. The authority citation for part 55 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 

secs. 107, 161, 181, 182, 183, 186, 187, 223, 

234 (42 U.S.C. 2137, 2201, 2231, 2232, 2233, 

2236, 2237, 2273, 2282); Energy 

Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202 

(42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842); Nuclear Waste Policy 

Act of 1982, sec. 306 (42 U.S.C. 10226); 44 

U.S.C. 3504 note. 

§ 55.5 [Amended] 

■ 26. Amend § 55.5 by: 

■ a. In paragraph (b)(1), removing the 

phrase ‘‘Except for test and research 

reactor facilities, the’’ and adding in its 

place the word ‘‘The’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (b)(3), removing the 

phrase ‘‘a test and research reactor or 

non-power reactor facility licensed 

under 10 CFR part 50’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘a utilization facility licensed 

under part 50 of this chapter that is not 

a power reactor’’. 

§ 55.40 [Amended] 

■ 27. In § 55.40, amend paragraph (d) by 

removing the phrase ‘‘all test and 

research reactors’’ and adding in its 

place the phrase ‘‘all non-power 

reactors’’. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 106253 

§ 55.53 [Amended] 

■ 28. Amend § 55.53 by: 

■ a. In paragraphs (e) and (f)(2), 

removing the phrase ‘‘test and research 

reactors’’ and adding in its place the 

phrase ‘‘non-power reactors’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (j), removing the 

phrase ‘‘non-power reactors’’ and 

adding in its place the phrase 

‘‘utilization facilities licensed under 10 

CFR part 50 that are not power 

reactors’’; and 

■ c. In paragraph (k): 

■ i. Removing the phrase ‘‘non-power 

reactors’’ and adding in its place the 

phrase ‘‘utilization facilities licensed 

under 10 CFR part 50 that are not power 

reactors’’; and 

■ ii. Removing the term ‘‘non-power’’ at 

the end of the paragraph. 

§ 55.59 [Amended] 

■ 29. In § 55.59, amend paragraph (c)(7) 

by: 

■ a. Removing in the paragraph heading, 

the phrase ‘‘research and test reactor 

facilities’’ and adding in its place the 

phrase ‘‘utilization facilities licensed 

under 10 CFR part 50 that are not power 

reactors’’; and 

■ b. Removing the phrase ‘‘research 

reactor or test reactor facility’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘utilization facility 

licensed under 10 CFR part 50 that is 

not a power reactor’’. 

§ 55.61 [Amended] 

■ 30. In § 55.61, amend paragraph (b)(5) 

by removing the phrase ‘‘non-power 

reactors’’ and adding in its place the 

phrase ‘‘utilization facilities licensed 

under 10 CFR part 50 that are not power 

reactors’’. 

PART 73—PHYSICAL PROTECTION OF 

PLANTS AND MATERIALS 

■ 31. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 

secs. 53, 147, 149, 161, 161A, 170D, 170E, 

170H, 170I, 223, 229, 234, 1701 (42 U.S.C. 

2073, 2167, 2169, 2201, 2201a, 2210d, 2210e, 

2210h, 2210i, 2273, 2278a, 2282, 2297f); 

Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 

202 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842); Nuclear Waste 

Policy Act of 1982, secs. 135, 141 (42 U.S.C. 

10155, 10161); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note. 

Section 73.37(b)(2) also issued under Sec. 

301, Public Law 96–295, 94 Stat. 789 (42 

U.S.C. 5841 note). 

■ 32. In § 73.2, add in alphabetical order 

the definition for Non-power reactor. 

§ 73.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Non-power reactor is defined at 10 

CFR 50.2. 

* * * * * 

§ 73.21 [Amended] 

■ 33. In § 73.21, amend paragraph 

(a)(1)(ii) by removing the phrase 

‘‘Research and test reactors’’ and adding 

in its place the phrase ‘‘non-power 

reactors’’. 

§ 73.23 [Amended] 

■ 34. Amend § 73.23 by removing the 

phrase ‘‘research and test reactors’’ and 

adding in its place the phrase ‘‘nonpower reactors’’. 

§ 73.60 [Amended] 

■ 35. Amend § 73.60 by removing 

wherever it may appear, the word 

‘‘nonpower’’ and adding in its place the 

word ‘‘non-power’’. 

PART 140—FINANCIAL PROTECTION 

REQUIREMENTS AND INDEMNITY 

AGREEMENTS 

■ 36. The authority citation for part 140 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 

secs. 161, 170, 223, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2201, 

2210, 2273, 2282); Energy Reorganization Act 

of 1974, secs. 201, 202 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 

5842); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note. 

■ 37. Amend § 140.3 by removing the 

definition for ‘‘Testing reactor’’ and 

adding the definition for ‘‘Testing 

facility’’ to read as follows: 

§ 140.3 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Testing facility is defined at 10 CFR 

50.2. 

* * * * * 

§ 140.11 [Amended] 

■ 38. In § 140.11, amend paragraph 

(a)(3) by removing the phrase ‘‘testing 

reactor’’ and adding in its place the 

phrase ‘‘testing facility’’. 

PART 170—FEES FOR FACILITIES, 

MATERIALS, IMPORT AND EXPORT 

LICENSES, AND OTHER 

REGULATORY SERVICES UNDER THE 

ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954, AS 

AMENDED 

■ 39. The authority citation for part 170 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 

secs. 11, 161(w) (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2201(w)); 

Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, sec. 201 

(42 U.S.C. 5841); 42 U.S.C. 2215; 31 U.S.C. 

901, 902, 9701; 44 U.S.C. 3504 note. 

■ 40. Amend § 170.3 by revising the 

definitions for ‘‘Research reactor’’ and 

‘‘Testing facility’’ to read as follows: 

§ 170.3 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Research reactor means a non-power 

production or utilization facility, as 

defined in 10 CFR 50.2, that is a nuclear 

reactor licensed under 10 CFR 50.21(c): 

(i) For which a safety assessment 

demonstrates accident radiation doses 

consistent with 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1)(i); 

and 

(ii) That is not a testing facility. 

* * * * * 

Testing facility is defined at 10 CFR 

50.2. 

* * * * * 

PART 171—ANNUAL FEES FOR 

REACTOR LICENSES AND FUEL 

CYCLE LICENSES AND MATERIALS 

LICENSES, INCLUDING HOLDERS OF 

CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE, 

REGISTRATIONS, AND QUALITY 

ASSURANCE PROGRAM APPROVALS 

AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES 

LICENSED BY THE NRC 

■ 41. The authority citation for part 171 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 

secs. 11, 161(w), 223, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 

2201(w), 2273, 2282); Energy Reorganization 

Act of 1974, sec. 201 (42 U.S.C. 5841); 42 

U.S.C. 2215; 44 U.S.C. 3504 note. 

■ 42. Amend § 171.5 by revising the 

definitions for ‘‘Research reactor’’ and 

‘‘Testing facility’’ to read as follows: 

§ 171.5 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Research reactor is defined at 10 CFR 

170.3. 

* * * * * 

Testing facility is defined at 10 CFR 

50.2. 

* * * * * 

Dated: December 19, 2024. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Carrie Safford, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2024–30721 Filed 12–27–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE 

AGENCY 

12 CFR Part 1282 

RIN 2590–AB34 

2025–2027 Enterprise Housing Goals 

AGENCY: Federal Housing Finance 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Housing Finance 

Agency (FHFA) is issuing a final rule on 

the housing goals for Fannie Mae and 

Freddie Mac (the Enterprises) for 2025 

through 2027 as required by the Federal 

Housing Enterprises Financial Safety 

and Soundness Act of 1992. The final 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1